OBJECTIVE: The purpose of the present study was to evaluate the effect of concentrated growth factor (CGF) on prevention of postoperative complications in the impacted third molar extraction.
METHODS: A total of 25 healthy patients with symmetrical bilaterally impacted third molars (50 extraction sites) were enrolled in this split-mouth, randomized, double-blind clinical trial. Third molar extractions were performed in both sites of the mandible at the same appointment. Randomization was performed using a coin toss to choose the test and control sites. CGF was placed in the extraction socket and the socket was sutured (test group), while the contralateral socket was only sutured (control group). Each patient acted as their own control. The primary outcome were pain assessed by visual analog scale (VAS) and facial swelling on the1st, 3rd and 7th postoperative days. The secondary outcomes were bone healing in extraction sockets through alveolar bone height (ABH) and alveolar bone density (ABD) evaluated by cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) immediately after extraction and in the 3rd and 6th months.
RESULTS: Twenty-five patients (12 female, 13 male; mean age 29.17) with bilateral impacted third molars participated in the study. A statistically significant reduction in pain was determined on the 3rd and 7th postoperative days in the CGF sites compared to the control sites while no statistically significant difference was found between the groups on the 1st postoperative day (3rd day, p = 0.009; 7th day, p = 0.039). There were no statistically significant differences in facial swelling and bone healing between the test and control groups at different time intervals, although the data obtained were slightly favoring the CGF group (p > 0.05). There were no serious adverse effects such as infection, alveolitis, paraesthesia, fracture through the follow-up period in all of the cases.
CONCLUSIONS: The study has demonstrated the effect of CGF on relieving the severity of pain after the third molar extraction.
CONCLUSIONS: Placement of CGF in the extraction socket could relieve postoperative pain and reduce patient discomfort after the third molar extraction. CGF is recommended during the third molar extraction due to its good biological effects, low cost and simple preparation procedures.
BACKGROUND: ChiCTR2300077819.

A quantitative method for the evaluation of facial swelling in rats with middle cerebral artery occlusion (MCAO) was established using a mathematical method for the first time. The rat model of MCAO was established via bilateral common carotid artery ligation. Three groups of rats with the same baseline were selected (model group, positive drug group, and control group) according to their behavioral score and body weight 24 h after surgery. Drug administration was initiated on post-MCAO day 8 and was continued for 28 days. Mobile phones were used to collect facial images at different time points after surgery. In facial image analysis, the outer canthi of both eyes were used as the facial dividing line, and the outer edge of the rat\'s face was framed using the marking method, and the framed part was regarded as the facial area (S) of the rats. The histogram created with Photoshop CS5 was used to measure the face area in pixels. The distance between the outer canthi of both eyes (Le) and vertical line from the tip of the nose to the line joining the eyes was recorded as H1, and the line from the tip of the nose to the midpoint of the line joining the eyes was recorded as H2. The facial area was calibrated based on the relationship between H1 and H2. The distance between the eyes was inversely proportional to the distance between the rats and mobile phone such that the face area was calibrated by unifying Le. The size of Le between the eyes was inversely proportional to the distance between the rats and mobile phone. This was used to calibrate the face area. When compared with the control group, the facial area of the model group gradually increased from postoperative day 1 to day 7, and there was a significant difference in the facial area of the model group on postoperative day 7. Hence, positive drugs exhibited the effect of improving facial swelling. H1 and H2 can reflect the state of turning the head and raising the head of the rats, respectively. Facial area was calibrated according to the relationship between H1 and H2, which had no obvious effect on the overall conclusion. Furthermore, mobile phone lens was used to capture the picture of rat face, and the distance between the eyes and H1 and H2 was used to calibrate the facial area. Hence, this method is convenient and can be used to evaluate subjective judgment of the human eyes via a quantitative method.

BACKGROUND: Carotid endarterectomy, especially eversion carotid endarterectomy (ECEA), is a standard treatment of carotid artery stenosis but continues to have deficiencies. We have described a modified ECEA technique that focuses on the quality of life (QoL), called Q-modified eversion carotid endarterectomy (QCEA). The modifications mainly include the skin incision, surgical approach, and arterial anastomosis. The purpose of the present study was to evaluate the clinical efficacy of QCEA and the QoL of patients after QCEA.
METHODS: We performed a retrospective study of 109 patients were had undergone ECEA or QCEA from October 2016 to December 2017. The data from all interventions were prospectively collected in a dedicated database. The primary efficacy outcome was the composite of any stroke, myocardial infarction, or death through the 1-year follow-up period. The secondary endpoint was the QoL of patients after ECEA or QCEA on the seventh postoperative day, including incision hematoma, incision numbness, facial swelling, and scar length.
RESULTS: QCEA was performed in 41 patients and ECEA in 45 patients. No statistically significant differences were found in operating or clamping time between the 2 groups. The incidence of facial swelling (4.9% vs. 28.9%; P = 0.040) and incision numbness (4.9% vs. 24.4%; P = 0.011) in the QCEA group was significantly lower than that in the ECEA group. The average scar length of the QCEA group was significantly shorter than that of the ECEA group (5.1 ± 1.4 cm vs. 7.6 ± 2.1 cm; P < 0.001). No transient ischemic attack, stroke, myocardial infarction, or mortality occurred in either group during the 1-year follow-up.
CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that QCEA can reduce incision numbness, facial edema, and scar length, thereby improving the QoL of patients.