4.2 Article

Application of a new drainage plug for large mandibular cysts after fenestration decompression

Journal

ANNALS OF PALLIATIVE MEDICINE
Volume 10, Issue 1, Pages 590-596

Publisher

AME PUBL CO
DOI: 10.21037/apm-20-2464

Keywords

Large mandibular cyst; fenestration decompression; new drainage plug; prognosis

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The new drainage plug designed for postoperative decompression of large mandibular cysts showed better adaptability, less food debris, and easier installation and removal compared to conventional plugs, leading to a shorter recovery time for patients.
Background: In order to improve the postoperative decompression and drainage of large mandibular cysts after fenestration decompression, a new drainage plug was designed and its feasibility for clinical application was explored. Methods: A total of 74 patients with large mandibular cysts requiring fenestration decompression were included and randomly divided into the control group (n=34) and model group (n=40). Patients in the control group were given a conventional plug, while patients in the model group were given the new silicone drainage plug. The drainage plug mold was printed using 3D printing technology. Subsequently, the mold was filled with silicone material and the drainage tube was placed into the mold to make a drainage plug. The clinical effect of the new drainage plug was assessed, and the postoperative recovery time was compared between the 2 groups. Results: In the model group, the average wear time of the new drainage plug was approximately 13 months. Compared with the control group, the course of treatment in the model group was shortened by approximately 5 months, with a better fit, less food debris, and easier installation and removal. Conclusions: The new drainage plug provides more convenience and better prognosis for patients after fenestration decompression, and holds great promise for clinical application.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available