Purpose: The recent coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic mainly affects the respiratory system; however, several oral and maxillofacial post-COVID-19 complications have also been observed. This series reports the growing number of osteonecrosis cases associated with post-COVID-19 patients. Materials and methods: This is a retrospective, multi-center case series that reports cases with maxillary osteonecrosis after various periods of SARS-CoV-2 infection in the period between January and August 2021 based on the PROCESS guidelines. Results: Twelve cases were reported with post-COVID-19 manifestation of spontaneous osteonecrosis of the maxillary jaw. Five patients were hospitalized during COVID-19 management and all of the twelve cases had at least one systematic Co-morbidity, and undertake corticosteroids prescription based on the COVID-19 disease treatment protocol. The mean onset of osteonecrosis symptoms appearance was 5.5 ± 2.43 weeks calculated from the day of the negative PCR test. The management was successfully done through surgical debridement and pre and post-operative antibiotics. No anti-fungal medications were prescribed as the fungal culture and the histopathological report were negative. Conclusion: Post-COVID-related osteonecrosis of the jaw (PC-RONJ) could be now considered as one of the potential post-COVID-19 oral and maxillofacial complications that occurs unprovokedly and mainly in the maxilla.

Objective: The purpose of this study was to determine the accuracy of virtual surgical planning for mandibular reconstruction, along with the implementation of a postoperative evaluation methodology. Materials and methods: The study is a prospective case series for computer-assisted mandibular reconstruction surgery. Analysis of the degree of agreement between virtual measurements and postoperative actual outcomes was performed. The reliability of the proposed evaluation methodology was assessed and analyzed using the Inter-Class Coefficient (ICC) test. Statistical significance was set at the 5% level. Results: Nine consecutive patients were selected. The analysis of all angular and linear parameters reported a highly statistically significant degree of agreement between the preoperative and postoperative measurements (P < 0.001). Furthermore, an extreme degree of reliability was reported when the evaluation methodology was scrutinized (ICC = 0.9). Conclusion: The excellent degree of agreement between the virtual plan and the actual outcome reported in this study validated the surgical accuracy of virtually assisted mandibular reconstruction. This study pointed out the reliability and reproducibility of the standardized evaluation protocol in an attempt to obtain a tolerable value for the acceptable postoperative results regarding the accuracy of computer-assisted surgery.

Objective: To investigate the effectiveness of a single labial infiltration of 4% articaine versus 2% lidocaine for the extraction of mandibular anterior teeth without an additional lingual injection. Patients and methods: A prospective, randomized-controlled, split-mouth clinical study was implemented. Healthy adult patients seeking bilateral extraction of mandibular anterior teeth were included in this study. Teeth extractions were randomly assigned to two equal groups, where one mandibular anterior tooth was extracted using a solitary labial infiltration of either 4% articaine (the study group) or 2% lidocaine (the control group). After 14 days, the other mandibular anterior tooth was extracted using the other local anesthetic agent. The selection of the anesthetic agent injected in the first session was done in a randomized fashion. After 5 min of local anesthetic injection, the tooth was extracted, and each patient was asked to record the intensity of the extraction pain using the Visual Analogue Scale (VAS). Results: Thirty-one patients were included in the study. The efficacy of a single labial injection for mandibular anterior teeth extraction was established by the fact that none of the patients in the study or control group required re-administration of local anesthesia. The mean VAS for pain control during tooth extraction was 1.16 ± 0.93 for the articaine group and 1.71 ± 0.90 for the lidocaine group. The pain score showed a statistically significant decrease in the articaine group compared to that in the lidocaine group (P = 0.017). Conclusion: Although the anesthetic effects of only buccal infiltration of 4% articaine and 2% lidocaine for extraction of mandibular anterior teeth were comparable, the use of 4% articaine would have more effective and predictable outcomes. ClinicalTrials.org: (ID: NCT05223075) 3/2/2022.