4.1 Article

Osteoradionecrosis, of the Mandible: Treatment Outcomes and Factors Influencing the Progress of Osteoradionecrosis

期刊

JOURNAL OF ORAL AND MAXILLOFACIAL SURGERY
卷 67, 期 7, 页码 1378-1386

出版社

W B SAUNDERS CO-ELSEVIER INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.joms.2009.02.008

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose: The present study was undertaken to evaluate our recent experience with mandibular osteoradionecrosis (ORN) and to identify factors that contribute to its progress. Patients and Methods: The medical records of 114 patients who had been treated for ORN during a 16-year period (1989 to 2004) were reviewed. The patients were then divided into 2 groups according to their response to conservative treatment. Group 1 consisted of patients whose ORN resolved with conservative treatment (n = 47). Group 2 consisted of patients whose ORN was unresolved with conservative treatment or who had required radical resection of the involved tissue (n = 67). The information was obtained from the medical records of the patients and analyzed. Results: The patients whose ORN was associated with an early-stage tumor or preirradiation extraction had a favorable response to conservative treatment. However, those who had an advanced primary tumor, had continued smoking and drinking after radiotherapy, had received palliative radiotherapy or a radiation dose of more than 6,000 rads, and who had an orocutaneous fistula, a pathologic fracture, swelling, or trismus had a poor response to conservative treatment. In these latter cases, radical resection of the involved tissue proved useful. Conclusions: The results of the present stud), have indicated that several factors (ie, the stage of the primary tumor, signs of ORN) can influence the progress of ORN. Our results suggest that radical resection is a useful method for treating mandibular ORN that does not respond to conservative treatment. (C) 2009 A inerican Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons J Oral Maxillofac Surg 67:13 78-1386, 2009

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