Level C· Early human research exploring benefitsProspective StudyPubMed

Is buccal fat pad a better option than nasolabial flap for reconstruction of intraoral defects after surgical release of fibrous bands in patients with oral submucous fibrosis? A pilot study: a protocol for the managemen

Rai A., Datarkar A., Rai M.

Prospective Study with a reported sample of 10 on Scar, Facial Rejuvenation, published in J Craniomaxillofac Surg (2013) — summary generated from the PubMed abstract.

Open my reading list
Level C· Early human research exploring benefitsEvidence level of this study

Early human evidence such as case series or small samples is exploring possible benefits.

  • Level A · Stronger Clinical Evidence
  • Level B · Emerging clinical evidence with positive signals
  • Level C · Early human research exploring benefits
  • Level D · Scientific groundwork from lab and animal studies
  • Emerging · Emerging topic under active research
Read the A–D evidence level guide

This page is generated from the PubMed record. The Thai description is an automated summary of bibliographic fields and the abstract, not a full translation, and is not medical advice.

Study type
Prospective Study
Journal
J Craniomaxillofac Surg (2013)
Country
Scotland
Reported sample size
10
Source database
PubMed
PMID
24103462
DOI
10.1016/j.jcms.2013.07.006

Abstract (original English)

The aim this study was to compare the buccal fat pad (BFP) and nasolabial flap for reconstruction of intraoral defects after release of fibrous bands in patients with oral submucous fibrosis (OSF). This is a comparative study. The study sample was derived from the population of patients who presented, with restricted mouth opening of less than 20 mm, to the Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Swargiya Dada Saheb Kalmegh Dental College and Hospital Hingna Nagpur. The patients were divided into two groups. In Group I (n = 10) reconstruction was performed with a nasolabial flap and in Group II (n = 10) with BFP. Both groups were analysed separately for mouth opening (interincisal distance in millimetres) preoperatively and 20 months postoperatively, time taken for epithelialization of BFP and nasolabial flaps. Statistical analysis was performed with SPSS statistical software for Windows, version 8.0 (SPSS, Inc, Chicago, IL) using the _2 test and Student's t test. In all 20 patients the interincisal mouth opening was (mean) 11 mm (3-19 mm) preoperatively which improved to a mean of 42 mm (23-52 mm). In Group I there were more complications as compared to Group II such as partial flap necrosis particularly at the tips, temporary widening of oral commissure and subluxation of TMJ. The unsightly extraoral scar and intraoral growth of hairs were not seen in Group II. BFP is t

What this study does not prove

  • • This study does not prove SVF is an approved treatment or a replacement for standard care.

Evidence level

Early human evidence such as case series or small samples is exploring possible benefits.

How we grade evidence
Adipose TissueAdolescentAdultCheekCicatrixElectrosurgeryFemaleFollow-Up StudiesGraft SurvivalHumans

Browse all related research

Filter the research library by this study's title keywords, author, or publication year.

Related research