| Literature DB >> 29104388 |
Sayaka Komori1, Kousuke Matsumoto2, Kenji Matsuo3, Hiroaki Suzuki4, Takahide Komori5.
Abstract
AIM: To suggest regarding the timing of oral surgery and laser treatment for frenulum abnormalities in the pediatric population.Entities:
Keywords: CO2 laser; Lingual frenectomy; Maxillary labial frenectomy.
Year: 2017 PMID: 29104388 PMCID: PMC5661042 DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10005-1449
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Clin Pediatr Dent ISSN: 0974-7052
Table 1: Representative classifications of frenulum
| I | Despite sufficiently opening the mouth and elevating the lingual apex, the lingual apex does not reach the palate. The lingual apex is constricted and appears to be two apexes | ||
| II | Despite elevating the lingual apex, it only lifts slightly higher than the occlusal plane | ||
| III | The lingual apex can hardly be elevated at all | ||
| I | Alveolar musoca | ||
| II | Gingival insertion | ||
| III | Interdental papilla | ||
| IV | Transpapillar |
Figs 1A to D:Example of procedures. (A) A preoperative view of a lingual frenulum attachment; (B) immediately after a lingual frenectomy with the CO2 laser, the tongue is able to move freely and the range of movement is greatly increased; (C) a preoperative view of a maxillary frenulum attachment; and (D) the final rhomboidal laser cut does not require sutures or periodontal dressing. Postoperative hemostasis is optimum
Table 2: Patients reasons for consultation
| Regular checkup | 12 | 1 | 13 | ||||
| Speech disorders | 7 | 0 | 7 | ||||
| Cosmetic problems | 1 | 4 | 5 | ||||
| Advised by parents or | 4 | 0 | 4 | ||||
| people around them | |||||||
| Eating/suckling disorder | 3 | 0 | 3 | ||||
| Postresection recurrence | 0 | 1 | 1 | ||||
| Other reasons | 0 | 2 | 2 | ||||
| Total | 27 | 8 | 35 |
Table 3: Age distributions of lingual and maxillary frenulum patients
| 0 | 3 | 2 | 1 (1) | 0 | |||||||||
| 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 2 | 2 | 0 | |||||||
| 2 | 4 | 3 | 1 (1) | 0 | |||||||||
| 3 | 5 | 1 | 4 (4) | 0 | |||||||||
| 4 | 1 | 0 | 1 (0) | 1 | 0 | 1(0) | |||||||
| 5 | 3 | 2 | 1 (1) | 0 | |||||||||
| 6 | 2 | 1 | 1 (0) | 0 | |||||||||
| 7 | 2 | 1 | 1 (0) | 1 | 0 | 1(0) | |||||||
| 8 | 4 | 0 | 4 (0) | 3 | 0 | 3(0) | |||||||
| 9~ | 2 | 1 | 1 (0) | 1 | 0 | 1(0) | |||||||
| Total | 27 | 12 | 15 (7) | 8 | 2 | 6(0) | |||||||
Table 4: Age distribution analyzed by Ito’s and Rui’s classifications
| 0 | 1 | ||||||||||||||
| 2 | 1 | ||||||||||||||
| 3 | 1 | 3 | |||||||||||||
| 4 | 1 | 1 | |||||||||||||
| 5 | 1 | ||||||||||||||
| 6 | 1 | ||||||||||||||
| 7 | 1 | 1 | |||||||||||||
| 8 | 4 | 1 | 2 | ||||||||||||
| 9~ | 1 | 1 | |||||||||||||
| Total | 9 | 6 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 4 | 0 | ||||||||
Table 5: Age range of reasons for not undergoing resection
| Young age | 6 | lm~2y | 1.2 | ||||
| No abnormal findings | 5 | 4m~12y | 5.5 | ||||
| Refusal of treatment | 3 | 2~6y | 4.3 | ||||
| 14 | lm~12y | 3.4 |