Aim: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the use of the day surgery unit in oral and maxillofacial surgery by examining procedures, patient characteristics, anesthetic techniques, and their effects on productivity and resource utilization. Methods: This retrospective observational study analyzed all same-day oral and maxillofacial (OMFS) surgical cases performed at a trauma center, between January 2020 and December 2025. Data collected included patient age, gender, admission type (day surgery or inpatient), and procedure type, with ages grouped into 4 categories and procedures classified into 9 main maxillofacial surgical categories with detailed subgroups. Descriptive statistics summarized demographics and case distribution, and the association between procedure category and admission type was tested. Results: Two thousand two hundred and thirty-eight OMFS surgical cases were analyzed after excluding 14 incomplete records, with a near-equal distribution between day surgery (49.1%) and inpatient admissions (50.9%). Patients were predominantly male (55.1%) and aged 18 to 40 years (68.3%). The surgical category was strongly associated with admission type ( P < .001). Dentoalveolar procedures were the most common (42.6%) and largely performed same-day surgery (79.2%), while trauma cases (18.8%) were almost exclusively inpatient (97.9%). Pathology procedures (22.5%) showed mixed utilization but were mainly inpatient, particularly infections and major pathology. Orthognathic (6.9%), cleft (2.5%), and reconstruction (0.5%) surgeries were predominantly inpatient, whereas TMJ procedures (2.1%) and plate removal (3.0%) were mostly day cases. Cosmetic surgery was least frequent (1.0%) with mixed admission patterns. Conclusion: Day surgery plays an important role in OMFS services by accommodating nearly half of maxillofacial surgical patients, particularly for less complex procedures.
Dental implants are a reliable option for replacing missing teeth; however, complications may arise when the implant system is unknown, limiting access to compatible restorative components. This case report describes the management of a 55-year-old female patient who presented with a missing cement-retained crown on a mandibular first molar implant of unknown origin. Clinical and radiographic examination confirmed a healthy peri-implant environment, but identification of the implant system was unsuccessful. To overcome this challenge, the existing titanium abutment was removed and analyzed. A discarded implant with a compatible fit was identified and used as a substitute analog. A customized coping was fabricated using CAD-CAM technology and utilized as an impression post to capture accurate details. A screw-retained zirconia crown was subsequently fabricated and successfully delivered. The restoration demonstrated excellent clinical stability, proper occlusion, and satisfactory esthetics. A 2-year follow-up confirmed healthy peri-implant tissues, stable bone levels, and absence of complications. This case highlights the importance of innovative problem-solving and interdisciplinary collaboration in managing unknown implant systems. Converting to a screw-retained restoration provided improved retrievability and reduced biological risks, offering a conservative and effective long-term solution.
Phonological processes are systematic speech simplifications that typically disappear by age 4 to 6 years. In children with repaired cleft lip and palate (RCLP), suppression of these processes is often delayed; however, evidence from Tamil-speaking children remains limited. Two 7-year-old Tamil-speaking boys, each with unilateral cleft lip and palate (UCLP), were compared; they differed only in the timing of primary palate repair. Child A underwent repair at 18 months (standard repair time), Child B underwent repair at 6 years (late repair). Speech samples were elicited using a standardized picture-naming task using the Consonant and Phonological Process Analysis tool for Tamil (43 items). Phonetic transcription and process analysis were performed independently. Child A (standard time repair) demonstrated 7 distinct phonological processes, whereas Child B (late repair) demonstrated 12 processes at higher frequency, including non-developmental patterns such as initial and final consonant deletion, depalatalization, deaffrication, and consonant assimilation. A language-specific process, retroflex fronting was identified in both children. Delayed palatal repair is associated with a greater number and persistence of developmental and non-developmental phonological processes, reflecting structural constraints and phonological mislearning. Early surgical repair and timely speech-language intervention are critical for optimal phonological outcomes in children with RCLP.
