Recurrence-free survival, but not surgical therapy per se, determines 583 patients' long-term satisfaction following primary pilonidal sinus surgery.

PURPOSE With pilonidal sinus disease (PSD) incidence increasing and patients freely choosing their surgeon, patients' interest issues have been brought forward estimating patient satisfaction following pilonidal sinus surgery. The influence of wound healing time and long-term recurrence rate on patient satisfaction in primary PSD surgery has not been investigated yet. METHODS Five hundred eighty-three patients (German military cohort) were interviewed, compiling wound healing time, aesthetic satisfaction, long-term recurrence-free survival and patient satisfaction having undergone primary open (PO) treatment, marsupialization (MARS) or primary midline closure (PMC) treatment. Recurrence rate was determined by Kaplan-Meier calculation following up to 20 years after primary PSD surgery. RESULTS Patient satisfaction ranking from 1 to 10 (10 = max. satisfied) showed an average satisfaction of 8.2 (range 0-10; 95% confidence interval (CI) 7891-8250). In-hospital stay time was significantly longer in primary open (PO) and marsupialization (MARS) group as compared to primary midline closure (PMC; p < 0.0001, Kruskal-Wallis test). Satisfaction was comparable between treatment groups, and was neither linked to in-hospital stay time nor to longer outpatient wound care period or total treatment time. Recurrence-free survival, as seen in the PO and PMC treatment group, revealed a highly significant difference for all patients. Improvement in MARS patients with versus without recurrence was low, as satisfaction with primary treatment was lower as the other groups. CONCLUSIONS Neither choice of surgical treatment nor treatment duration within hospital or after hospital influences patient satisfaction, as long as recurrence-free survival can be provided. Marsupialization was ranked lower in both groups (with or without recurrence), and should be abandoned, as patients are significantly less satisfied with either results, independent of recurrence.

Stability of Le Fort I maxillary inferior repositioning surgery with rigid internal fixation: a systematic review

The aim of this study was to evaluate the stability of Le Fort I maxillary inferior repositioning surgery in patients with a vertical maxillary deficiency at least 6 months after surgery. The electronic databases were searched to identify all articles reporting the long-term effects of one-piece maxillary inferior repositioning with rigid fixation. Methodological quality was evaluated according to 15 criteria related to study design, measurements, and statistical analysis. Two articles were identified, with a total of 22 patients. The maxilla was repositioned inferiorly from a mean 3.2 to 4.5mm in the anterior part and from a mean 0.1 to 1.8mm in the posterior part. At 6 months post-treatment, absolute relapse of a mean 1.6mm was measured for the anterior part of the maxilla and 0.3mm for the posterior part of the maxilla. The stability of maxillary inferior repositioning surgery could not be confirmed due to the small sample size, unclear diagnosis, and potential confounding factors.

Influence of unilateral maxillary first molar extraction treatment on second and third molar inclination in Class II subdivision patients.

OBJECTIVE To assess the maxillary second molar (M2) and third molar (M3) inclination following orthodontic treatment of Class II subdivision malocclusion with unilateral maxillary first molar (M1) extraction. MATERIALS AND METHODS Panoramic radiographs of 21 Class II subdivision adolescents (eight boys, 13 girls; mean age, 12.8 years; standard deviation, 1.7 years) before treatment, after treatment with extraction of one maxillary first molar and Begg appliances and after at least 1.8 years in retention were retrospectively collected from a private practice. M2 and M3 inclination angles (M2/ITP, M2/IOP, M3/ITP, M3/IOP), constructed by intertuberosity (ITP) and interorbital planes (IOP), were calculated for the extracted and nonextracted segments. Random effects regression analysis was performed to evaluate the effect on the molar angulation of extraction, time, and gender after adjusting for baseline measurements. RESULTS Time and extraction status were significant predictors for M2 angulation. M2/ITP and M2/IOP decreased by 4.04 (95% confidence interval [CI]: -6.93, 1.16; P  =  .001) and 3.67 (95% CI: -6.76, -0.58; P  =  .020) in the extraction group compared to the nonextraction group after adjusting for time and gender. The adjusted analysis showed that extraction was the only predictor for M3 angulation that reached statistical significance. M3 mesial inclination increased by 7.38° (95% CI: -11.2, -3.54; P < .001) and 7.33° (95% CI: -11.48, -3.19; P  =  .001). CONCLUSIONS M2 and M3 uprighting significantly improved in the extraction side after orthodontic treatment with unilateral maxillary M1 extraction. There was a significant increase in mesial tipping of maxillary second molar crowns over time.

Long-term evaluation of Class II subdivision treatment with unilateral maxillary first molar extraction

OBJECTIVE To evaluate the long-term effects of asymmetrical maxillary first molar (M1) extraction in Class II subdivision treatment. MATERIALS AND METHODS Records of 20 Class II subdivision whites (7 boys, 13 girls; mean age, 13.0 years; SD, 1.7 years) consecutively treated with the Begg technique and M1 extraction, and 15 untreated asymmetrical Class II adolescents (4 boys, 11 girls; mean age, 12.2 years; SD, 1.3 years) were examined in this study. Cephalometric analysis and PAR assessment were carried out before treatment (T1), after treatment (T2), and on average 2.5 years posttreatment (T3) for the treatment group, and at similar time points and average follow-up of 1.8 years for the controls. RESULTS The adjusted analysis indicated that the maxillary incisors were 2.3 mm more retracted in relation to A-Pog between T1 and T3 (β  =  2.31; 95% CI; 0.76, 3.87), whereas the mandibular incisors were 1.3 mm more protracted (β  =  1.34; 95% CI; 0.09, 2.59), and 5.9° more proclined to the mandibular plane (β  =  5.92; 95% CI; 1.43, 10.41) compared with controls. The lower lip appeared 1.4 mm more protrusive relative to the subnasale-soft tissue-Pog line throughout the observation period in the treated adolescents (β  =  1.43; 95% CI; 0.18, 2.67). There was a significant PAR score reduction over the entire follow-up period in the molar extraction group (β  =  -6.73; 95% CI; -10.7, -2.7). At T2, 65% of the subjects had maxillary midlines perfectly aligned with the face. CONCLUSIONS Unilateral M1 extraction in asymmetrical Class II cases may lead to favorable occlusal outcomes in the long term without harming the midline esthetics and soft tissue profile.