4.1 Article

The Use of Solid-Phase Concentrated Growth Factors for Surgical Defects in the Treatment of Dysplastic Lesions of the Oral Mucosa

期刊

JOURNAL OF ORAL AND MAXILLOFACIAL SURGERY
卷 74, 期 12, 页码 2549-2556

出版社

W B SAUNDERS CO-ELSEVIER INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.joms.2016.06.183

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose: Use of the skin graft and artificial dermis to reconstruct a defect after the excision of dysplastic lesions of the oral mucosa has been practiced for years. The purpose of this case series was to introduce a novel resolution-that is, an operating procedure using solid-phase concentrated growth factors (SPCGFs) to reconstruct oral mucosa defects-and observe the postoperative results and evaluate its clinical effects. Materials and Methods: In this consecutive serial case study of patients with oral dysplastic lesions who underwent operations from April 2015 through July 2015, the primary endpoint of the study was to observe the clinical wound-healing profile at 1 week, 3 weeks, 3months, and 6 months postoperatively. The secondary endpoint was to observe maximal interincisal opening (MIO) and wound pain preoperatively and at 1 and 3 days, 1 and 3 weeks, and 3 and 6 months postoperatively. The minimum follow-up was 8 months, and the longest was 1 year. Results: All sites had healed with complete epithelialization after 3 weeks postoperatively. All patients had awound-healing score no higher than 3 at 3 weeks postoperatively. The preoperative MIO was 52 +/- 4.64 mm and the 6-month postoperative MIO was 49.2 +/- 3.03 mm. No patient reported further pain from 3 weeks postoperatively. No recurrence of the lesion was found at or after the 6-month follow-up period. Conclusion: The results of this study show that the use of SPCGFs to reconstruct oral mucosa defects is feasible and practical. The efficacy of SPCGFs needs to be verified by additional studies with higher-level evidence bases in the future. (C) 2016 American Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.1
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据