Biomedical subjects

J Jansma

Publications and source records attributed to J Jansma.

At least 19 recordsLinked to original sources

PubMed2006

[Examination for focal infections: sensible or superfluous?].

Detection of focal infections aims at the identification and subsequent treatment of sources of odontogenic inflammation in order to prevent health threats in patients who are often medically compromised. Examination for dental foci often precedes medical treatment of patients with increased risks of endocarditis, patients with a joint prosthesis, patients scheduled for chemotherapy or head and neck radiotherapy or candidates for organ transplantations. Although examination for possible sources of dental inflammation is performed on a routine basis in many hospitals, the scientific basis for this policy apparently is very limited, and there is an evident need for well-designed randomized clinical trials in this field.

Focal Infection, Dental↗

PubMed2005

Morbidity of chin bone transplants used for reconstructing alveolar defects in cleft patients.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to evaluate the objective and subjective morbidity of symphyseal chin bone harvesting used for reconstruction of alveolar defects in young cleft patients. DESIGN: All patients who had undergone chin bone harvesting for alveolar cleft reconstruction in the period from 1992 through 2000 at the Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery of the University Hospital Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands, were invited to participate in this retrospective study.Patients' acceptance, perioperative and postoperative morbidity were evaluated. A survey of the medical records was performed. In addition, the patients completed a questionnaire for their appreciation of the procedure. They were also subjected to a clinical and radiographic examination. PATIENTS: Thirty patients (21 males and 9 females; mean age 11.8 +/- 3.6 years) participated in this study. RESULTS: Neither the medical records nor the experiences of the patients showed significant morbidity. The procedure was appreciated with 6.8 +/- 3.5 (scale 0 to 10). Postoperative pain was scored as 1.2 +/- 2.5 (scale 0 to 10). Three patients reported transient sensory disturbances at the donor site. Two patients showed a slight sensibility disorder in the symphyseal region. In three patients, an endodontic problem had developed in a lower incisor. CONCLUSION: This study showed that chin bone harvesting for reconstructing alveolar cleft in young patients is a well-accepted procedure with low objective and subjective morbidity. Notwithstanding this low morbidity, the patients (and their parents) have to be informed about the risk of objective and subjective disturbances of the sensibility in the donor region and the risk of dental pulp necrosis.

Adolescent↗

PubMed2004

[Dentoalveolar surgery for the dentist: removal of teeth and root tips].

The indication for surgical removal of teeth or roottips is often made in dental practice. In some cases a general practitioner will decide to perform the surgical procedure himself, while in other cases he will refer the patient to an oral and maxillofacial surgeon. Level of difficulty of the treatment and the experience, the time available, the availability for postoperative care, and the personal interest of the dentist are factors involved in decision making. It is likely that with increased experience, the dentist will be able to perform more complicated treatments. This article supports this process. Surgical removal of teeth and roottips is systematically described, with emphasis on technical aspects. Presurgical management, removal of singlerooted and multirooted teeth, woundcare and postoperative management are the subjects covered.

Decision Making↗

PubMed2004

[Dentoalveolar surgery for the dentist: removal of third molar].

In contrast to removal of other teeth and roottips, a third molar is mostly removed for preventive reasons. There is still debate about the correct indications for removal of third molars. As soon as the decision to remove a third molar surgically is made, the dentist has to decide between performing the surgical procedure himself or referring the patient to an oral and maxillofacial surgeon. Level of difficulty of the treatment and experience, available time, availability for postoperative care, and personal interest of the dentist are issues influencing this decision. This article describes systematically the indications, for instance using preoperative radiodiagnostics, the factors determining the technical surgical plan, as well as the practical surgical procedures.

Decision Trees↗

PubMed2004

[Dentoalveolar traumatology].

The dentist will be confronted unexpectedly with a dentoalveolar trauma patient. This patient has to be seen immediately and has to be treated adequately. The risk of overlooking trauma-related signs when examining these patients, can be minimized by following a strict protocol. This article describes a protocol for examination and treatment of a patient with a dentoalveolar trauma. The prognosis after treatment of the trauma is discussed. Also some recommendations regarding aftercare and prevention are presented.

Alveolar Process↗

PubMed2004

[Distraction osteogenesis of the maxilla in cleft patients. Worth considering].

Three cleft patients were treated with RED-distraction for maxillary hypoplasia. In all patients, the desired advancement could be achieved easily. The occlusion, the lip relation and the facial profile improved remarkably post treatment. Although the treatment was well tolerated by the patients, some limitations of the treatment were also noted, such as a nasal speech and discomfort by the head frame. Distraction osteogenesis in the maxilla has several advantages when compared to the conventional Le Fort 1-osteotomy: atraumatic advancement of the maxilla, absence of need for an autogeneous bone transplant, and applicability at relatively young age. The advantages and disadvantages of distraction osteogenesis must be considered for each individual patient.

Adolescent↗

PubMed2003

Oral sequelae of head and neck radiotherapy.

In addition to anti-tumor effects, ionizing radiation causes damage in normal tissues located in the radiation portals. Oral complications of radiotherapy in the head and neck region are the result of the deleterious effects of radiation on, e.g., salivary glands, oral mucosa, bone, dentition, masticatory musculature, and temporomandibular joints. The clinical consequences of radiotherapy include mucositis, hyposalivation, taste loss, osteoradionecrosis, radiation caries, and trismus. Mucositis and taste loss are reversible consequences that usually subside early post-irradiation, while hyposalivation is normally irreversible. Furthermore, the risk of developing radiation caries and osteoradionecrosis is a life-long threat. All these consequences form a heavy burden for the patients and have a tremendous impact on their quality of life during and after radiotherapy. In this review, the radiation-induced changes in healthy oral tissues and the resulting clinical consequences are discussed.

Cranial Irradiation↗

PubMed2003

Prevention and treatment of the consequences of head and neck radiotherapy.

The location of the primary tumor or lymph node metastases dictates the inclusion of the oral cavity, salivary glands, and jaws in the radiation treatment portals for patients who have head and neck cancer. The clinical sequelae of the radiation treatment include mucositis, hyposalivation, loss of taste, osteoradionecrosis, radiation caries, and trismus. These sequelae may be dose-limiting and have a tremendous effect on the patient's quality of life. Most treatment protocols to prevent these sequelae are still based on clinical experience, but alternatives based on fundamental basic and clinical research are becoming more and more available. Many of these alternatives either need further study before they can be incorporated into the protocols commonly used to prevent and treat the radiation-related oral sequelae or await implementation of these protocols. In this review, the various possibilities for prevention and/or treatment of radiation-induced changes in healthy oral tissues and their consequences are discussed.

Anti-Bacterial Agents↗

PubMed2002

[Use of the trephine for harvesting bone from the iliac crest].

For closure of the cleft alveolus usually a choice between a bone graft from the chin or from the iliac crest is made. In the department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery of the University Hospital Groningen harvesting of bone from the iliac crest was performed with an open technique. From the results of an earlier study on the morbidity of this procedure until June 1997 it was found that in 26.1% of the cases a contour defect could be observed in the donor region. The mean width of the mature scar was 5.0 +/- 2.4 mm (range 1-10 mm). Especially these findings and the wish to further reduce postoperative pain led the University Hospital to start harvesting iliac crest bone grafts with a trephine in june 1997. In the period june 1997 through december 1999 iliac crest bone grafts were harvested in 28 cleft lip and palate patients (mean age 10.5 years; range 8-12 years) with this trephine technique. The scars were smaller in +/- 0.3 both length (mean 15 +/- 1.5 mm; range 11-24 mm) and width (mean 1.5 +/- 0.3 mm; range 1-3.5 mm). No contour defects and sensory loss occurred. Postoperative pain could adequately be relieved by local infiltration of the donor area with a 0.25% marcaïne solution and analgetics. On the first day post surgery all patients could be mobilised without problems. Based on these findings and recent literature it can be concluded that the use of the trephine is the method of choice for harvesting iliac crest bone in cleft lip and palate patients. Only when large amounts of bone, a bone block or a piece of cortical bone is needed, the open technique should be used.

Alveoloplasty↗

PubMed2000

[Distraction osteogenesis of the mandible in 2 children with obstruction of the upper respiratory tract due to micrognathia].

A girl approximately 2 years old with Pierre Robin sequence had periods of nocturnal respiratory insufficiency as a consequence of micrognathia and a boy nearly 4 years old with Nager syndrome and tracheostomy was retarded in his speech development, had problems swallowing and often had respiratory tract infections. The obstruction of the upper respiratory tract was resolved by performing a distraction osteogenesis of the lower jaw. A tracheostomy was avoided or else removed. The girl became more active and there was an improvement in the boy's speech development. Distraction osteogenesis is a good alternative to the current practice of mandibular reconstruction in micrognathic patients, which involves extensive bone grafts.

Child, Preschool↗

PubMed2000

[Distraction osteogenesis in maxillofacial surgery].

With distraction osteogenesis (DOG) formation of new bone is initiated by gradual separation of osteotomized bone fragments. Both external and internal distraction devices are available. Since its first application in craniomaxillofacial surgery in the early nineties, developments in distraction osteogenesis have been tremendous. Important advantages of this technique are: lack of a donorsite and its associated morbidity; increase of the volume of the soft tissue envelop; less surgical trauma compared to conventional craniomaxillofacial procedures; and the usability of the technique in growing individuals. Disadvantages of DOG are: the sofar limited experience and follow-up in craniomaxillofacial surgery; and the unknown influences on growth. The technique will gradually find its niche and the general dentist will therefore be increasingly confronted with its specific indications. In this paper the general principles of DOG and a number of indications in craniomaxillofacial surgery are discussed.

Humans↗

PubMed1999

Bone grafting of cleft lip and palate patients for placement of endosseous implants.

OBJECTIVE: Fixation of a prosthesis or single tooth replacement using osseointegrated implants has the potential to overcome functional and psychological inconveniences that many patients experience from such appliances. However, the dimensions of the recipient site are relatively often inadequate for implant placement. This study assessed grafting of this site with autogenous bone as a solution for the latter problem. METHODS: Ten cleft lip and palate patients had bone grafts; six had iliac crest grafts to the maxillary sinus floor (31 implants), and four had chin bone grafts to the local defect in the anterior maxilla (six implants). Implants were inserted during the grafting procedure (one patient) or after 3 months (nine patients). RESULTS: No inflammation of the bone grafts or the maxillary sinus occurred. One implant was lost during the healing phase. Four single tooth restorations, one fixed bridge, and five implant-supported overdentures were made. During the follow-up, which was 47 months (range, 28 to 65 months) in the anterior maxilla group and 56 months (range, 28 to 68 months) in the posterior maxilla group, no loss of implants was observed, and all prosthetic appliances functioned well. CONCLUSIONS: It is concluded that bone grafting followed by placement of dental implants can serve as a reliable alternative for conventional prosthetic rehabilitation of cleft patients.

Adolescent↗

PubMed1998

[Dental foci. Role, treatment and prophylaxis in patients at risk].

A dental focus usually is a localized chronic infection that under certain circumstances may result in severe local or systemic disease. The most important dental foci are periodontitis, periapical lesions, advanced carious lesions, nonvital pulp, partially impacted teeth and root tips. Local effects of dental foci particularly are processes that may come to expression because of a compromised immunological defence, such as osteoradionecrosis. Systemic effects are mainly caused by transient bacteraemia which can occur spontaneously out of dental foci or after manipulations such as brushing, flossing and dental treatment. Well known examples are infectious endocarditis, fever during chemotherapy and hematogenous infections of total joint prostheses. For all patients at risk (a.o. endocarditis, endoprosthesis, chemotherapy, radiotherapy) it is important that dental foci are treated. Because in most patients the risk factors are present lifelong, a healthy dentition and a healthy periodontium are the best way of prevention.

Antibiotic Prophylaxis↗

PubMed1997

[Zygomatic fractures].

The zygomatic bone is important for the midfacial contour and for protection of the orbital contents. Zygomatic fractures frequently occur. Because they are hidden behind a simple black eye in many instances, there is a potential risk of missing the diagnosis. Fresh zygomatic fractures are relatively easy to treat, but late secondary corrections are difficult and often have dissatisfying results. The most important clinical signs of a zygomatic fracture are: flattening of the zygomatic contour, edema, haematoma, unilateral nose-bleeding, disturbed sensibility, diplopia, restricted mandibular movements, contour defects. In this paper the clinical signs of a zygomatic fracture are emphasized to enable the general practitioner to examine the patient with a simple black eye appropriately and be able to recognize a zygomatic fracture.

Diagnosis, Differential↗

PubMed1997

[Fractures of the midface].

Midfacial fractures have a wide variety of appearance. The original classification by Le Fort is still in use. Nasal-orbital-ethmoidal (NOE) fractures deserve special attention. Next to clinical evaluation detailed computer tomography is necessary. Extended open reduction and internal fixation with various mini- and microplate osteosyntheses as well as immediate reconstruction with calvarian bone are essential components of surgical treatment aiming for adequate function and esthetics. Reduction of increased inner intercanthal distances is a substantial part of the treatment of NOE fractures. Surgical repair within 48-72 hours benefits the final result and limits the number and extent of secondary corrections.

Bone Transplantation↗

PubMed1996

Morbidity from iliac crest bone harvesting.

PURPOSE: The iliac crest is the most common donor site for autogenous bone grafting in maxillofacial surgery. The aim of this study was to evaluate retrospectively the morbidity of bone harvesting from the inner table of the anterior iliac crest. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Sixty-five patients were recalled 1 to 4 years after iliac crest bone harvesting. The morbidity as well as the patient's satisfaction were evaluated by a survey of the medical record, a mail-in questionnaire, and a standardized physical examination. RESULTS: There was good acceptance of this bone harvesting procedure, and the morbidity was low. CONCLUSION: Bone harvesting from the inner table of the anterior iliac crest is a good option for reconstructing bone defects.

Adult↗

PubMed1993

Natural and induced radiation caries: A SEM study.

Radiation caries is a well-known indirect side effect of head and neck radiotherapy. The initiation and progression of radiation caries were studied using an in situ model. The morphology of induced carious lesions was compared with that of natural radiation caries. Both natural and induced radiation caries showed the same patterns of decay; widespread areas with porosity of enamel, crater formation with exposure of subsurface enamel, preferential dissolution of prisms with hollowing out of prism cores, loss of large parts of surface enamel and loss of full enamel coverage exposing the underlying dentin. In irradiated patients most enamel slabs were severely demineralized within 6 weeks whereas in control subject the slabs showed no significant demineralization after 12 weeks. The model may offer an excellent opportunity to study preventive fluoride regimens because of the rapid induction of radiation caries and its similarity with natural lesions.

Adult↗

PubMed1992

Protocol for the prevention and treatment of oral sequelae resulting from head and neck radiation therapy.

In addition to the desired antitumor effects, head and neck radiation therapy induces damage in normal tissues that may result in oral sequelae such as mucositis, hyposalivation, radiation caries, taste loss, trismus, soft-tissue necrosis, and osteoradionecrosis. These sequelae may be dose-limiting and have a tremendous effect on the patient's quality of life. Current policies to prevent these sequelae primarily are based on clinical experience and show great diversity. A protocol for the prevention and treatment of oral sequelae resulting from head and neck radiation therapy, based on fundamental research and data derived from the literature, is presented. The protocol is particularly applicable in centers with a dental team. This team should be involved at the time of initial diagnosis so that a successful preventive regimen is an integral part of the overall cancer treatment regimen.

Clinical Protocols↗