Search

Subperiosteal implants (SIs) were first developed by Dahl in 1941 for oral rehabilitation in case of severe jaw atrophy. Over time, this technique was abandoned due to the high success rate of endosseous implants. The emergence of patient-specific implants and modern dentistry allowed a revisitation of this 80-year-old concept resulting in a novel “high-tech” SI implant. This study evaluates the clinical outcomes in forty patients after maxillary rehabilitation with an additively manufactured subperiosteal jaw implant (AMSJI®). The oral health impact profile-14 (OHIP-14) and numerical rating (NRS) scale were used to assess patient satisfaction and evaluate oral health. In total, fifteen men (mean age: 64.62 years, SD ± 6.75 years) and twenty-five women (mean age: 65.24 years, SD ± 6.77 years) were included, with a mean follow-up time of 917 days (SD ± 306.89 days) after AMSJI installation. Patients reported a mean OHIP-14 of 4.20 (SD ± 7.10) and a mean overall satisfaction based on the NRS of 52.25 (SD ± 4.00). Prosthetic rehabilitation was achieved in all patients. AMSJI is a valuable treatment option for patients with extreme jaw atrophy. Patients enjoy treatment benefits resulting in high patient satisfaction rates and impact on oral health.

Strong mandibular angles and a heavy chin are perceived as masculine features, so surgical feminization of female or transgender faces may warrant mandibular base narrowing (borders and angles) and a reduction in chin width and height. With this in mind, we have devised an interdental midline osteotomy (triangular in shape and with a caudal base) to accompany a box-shaped impaction osteotomy of the chin symphysis and horizontal triangular resection of the lateral mandibular border. The reduction of the intergonial width and of the mandibular border and chin widths takes place upon closure of the midline defect. Between November 2016 and August 2017, five patients agreed to the mandibular feminization osteotomy and were followed up thereafter for 6-13 months. All expressed satisfaction with the results; no dental, periodontal, or temporomandibular joint-related complications were encountered. This technique is a viable alternative to buccal decortication, chin reduction osteotomy, and masseter reduction surgery.

Residual bilateral cleft lip deformities are commonly attributed to neglect of oral sphincter reconstruction during primary repair. This report describes a straightforward technique for reoperation that is applicable for most patients. It also describes the results of a retrospective observational cohort study of 21 patients that underwent reoperation performed by the senior author (MYM) from 1991 to 2018. The patients had undergone primary lip repair at other institutions. Their mean age at reoperation was 17 years. Pre‑ and post‑operative photographs (at 3.5 years’ postoperation) were assessed for 15 parameters. Overall configuration, scar appearance, philtrum anatomy, Cupid’s bow shape, and esthetic aspects of lip dynamics improved considerably. This procedure is the same as that used by the authors in 4‑month‑old children who have undergone a nasolabial adhesion procedure at 4 weeks of age. We discuss the rationale of using this procedure for primary lip repair, thus eliminating the need for reoperation.