According to the European Union (EU) Directive 2005/36, the medical specialty of oral and maxillofacial surgery (OMFS) exists with two possible formats: dual degree OMFS called Dental, Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery (DOMFS) - basic medical and basic dental training and single medical degree Maxillofacial Surgery (MFS). Within the EU and across all of Europe, differences in the nature and quality of OMFS training coexist. By implementing the highest possible standards of training, patient care can be improved. To establish quality metrics for an ideal OMFS training programme, the European OMFS Trainee Forum of the Union Européenne des Médecins Spécialistes (UEMS) conducted a Delphi consensus protocol from November 2023 to January 2024. Facilitated by the OMFS Section of UEMS, 57 trainees from 32 countries participated. The process involved the definition of three quality levels using the red, amber, and green (RAG) rating system. Following the Delphi process, 46 domains were identified, including features within training programmes/rotations, teaching and education programmes, training placements, recording of training progression and activity, and external assessment of training programmes. The results were aligned with the UEMS OMFS European Training Requirement (ETR). With the introduction of a RAG rating, trainees and trainers can review their training programmes with the aim of improving them by moving domains from Red to Green. Raising the standard of training will benefit our patients. This initiative could mark a significant step towards the harmonisation of OMFS training, improving quality and ensuring consistent, high-level care throughout Europe.

Introduction: Odontogenic cervicofacial infections are still an ongoing problem, requiring immediate hospital admittance and management. The aim of this study is to reflect the number of patients with cervicofacial infections who were admitted during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic period in a single, point of reference center in Northern Greece as well as analyze the quantitative and qualitative parameters of patient characteristics and management data. Methods: This was a retrospective cohort study that included all the patients with cervicofacial infections who were admitted to our unit during the COVID-19 pandemic, specifically between 2020 and 2021. For comparative reasons, patients admitted with cervicofacial infections between 2019 and 2020 (pre-COVID period) were analyzed. Results: In total, 341 patients fulfilled the criteria for this study. Specifically, the number of admitted patients was 151 in the pre-COVID era instead of 190 patients in the pandemic. The mean age of the patients was 45.3 years, with a slight male predominance (54.7% males to 45.3%). The mean duration of hospitalization was 2.5 days in the pre-COVID period instead of 3.42 days in the pandemic. Interestingly, in the pandemic, eight times more patients were admitted to the ICU post-operatively, in contrast to the pre-COVID period (23 vs 3 patients). Also in the COVID period, almost 54.9% of the patients presented with fever and 49.6% with trismus. Moreover, the submandibular space involvement was the most common space of infection in both COVID and pre-COVID groups with (58.9% and 49.7%) respectively. In one-third of all cases, a post-extraction infection of a third molar was the main cause of abscess. Conclusion: Cervicofacial infections during the COVID-19 pandemic appeared with more severe symptoms and resulted in an increased number of patients who needed admittance to the intensive care unit, in contrast to the pre-COVID era. Also, the mean length of stay was increased for a day at the same period. This study could be used as an example for further research, in case of similar pandemic situations in the future.

Background: Third molar (M3) removal is considered one of the most frequent oral surgical procedures worldwide. Indications for extraction include both prophylactic and therapeutic reasons. However, this does not come without complications, and despite the widespread practice, there is no consensus on whether prophylactic M3 extraction is more beneficial than conservative management. Aims: The aim of this systematic review is to highlight and compare the main differences and outcomes between prophylactic and therapeutic removal of third molars with conservative treatment and observation. Several factors have been considered such as post-surgical infection risks and complications, hospitalization indications, economic factors and periodontal health of adjacent teeth. Methods: A literature review and meta-analysis were conducted, which comprises studies describing the incidence of postoperative complications, the periodontal status of the second molar (M2), the prevalence of caries, and the economic aspects of the M3 removal. Periodontal parameters of the adjacent teeth such as periodontal pocket depth (PPD) and clinical attachment level (CAL), as well as inferior alveolar nerve (IAN) damage and post-operative inflammatory complications such as bacteremia, were considered. Finally, hospitalization and the economic burden of this procedure were also stated. Results: Third molar retention is associated with increased periodontal disease such as PPD and accumulation of plaque to the adjacent teeth, as well as risk of caries. Contrarily, prophylactic M3 extraction is often linked to unnecessary morbidity and costs, such as risk of bacteremia, trismus, postoperative pain, IAN damage, and sometimes the need for hospitalization. From an economic aspect, this frequent procedure is mostly associated with higher direct and indirect costs, which can exceed the amount of EUR 1000 per patient without hospitalization. Conclusions: This review tried to determine whether the M3 observation and retention can be more beneficial than M3 extraction, after examining certain parameters. Findings indicate that unnecessary morbidity and costs can be attributed to third molar extraction, with postoperative complications such as pain and trismus and sometimes the need for hospitalization. Transient bacteremia also accompanies third molar removal.

Background and Clinical Significance: Local anesthetic injections, routine in dental practice, ensure pain control during procedures like root canal treatments. Though generally safe, they can occasionally cause hematomas, localized blood accumulations in tissue planes. Rapidly expanding hematomas in the head and neck are exceptionally rare but dangerous due to anatomical complexity, potentially threatening the airway. This case report emphasizes the critical need for the prompt recognition and management of such complications to prevent life-threatening outcomes, highlighting vigilance in routine dental procedures. Case Presentation: A 63-year-old male presented with rapidly enlarging right buccal swelling four hours post-local anesthetic injection for a root canal on a right maxillary molar. Examination showed warm, erythematous edema and buccal ecchymosis; a CT scan confirmed a 3.8 cm × 8.4 cm × 5.5 cm buccal space hematoma. His medical history revealed controlled type 2 diabetes and hyperlipidemia, and his coagulation was normal. Conservative management failed as the hematoma progressed, limiting mouth and eye opening. Urgent surgical decompression under general anesthesia evacuated clots and ligated facial and angular arteries. ICU monitoring ensured airway stability, with discharge on day three with antibiotics and follow-up. Conclusions: This case highlights the rare potential for dental anesthetic injections to cause rapidly progressive hematomas, requiring urgent surgical intervention and multidisciplinary care to prevent airway compromise. Early recognition, imaging, and decisive management are vital in achieving favorable outcomes in such serious complications.

Exploring minimally invasive prognostic markers in head and neck squamous cell carcinoma is of value