Limits...
Conventional 2.0 mm miniplates versus 3-D plates in mandibular fractures.

Sadhwani BS, Anchlia S - Ann Maxillofac Surg (2013)

Bottom Line: Chi-square test.The results of this study suggested that the treatment of mandibular fractures (symphysis, parasymphysis, and angle) with 3-dimensional plates provided 3-dimensional stability and carried low morbidity and infection rates.The only probable limitations of 3-dimensional plates were excessive implant material due to the extra vertical bars incorporated for countering the torque forces.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Government Dental College and Hospital, Ahmedabad, Gujarat, India.

ABSTRACT

Aim: To compare and evaluate the treatment outcome and postoperative complications in mandibular fractures using 2- and 3-dimensional miniplates.

Materials and methods: This study consisted of a sample of 28 patients (40 fracture sites) divided randomly but equally (single-blind control trial study) into two groups. Each group contains 14 patients (20 similar fracture sites in each group). Group 1 was treated with open reduction and internal fixation using 3-dimensional (3-D) miniplates. Group II was treated using 2-dimensional (2-D) 2-mm miniplates.

Results: Out of 14 patients treated by conventional 2-mm miniplates, 2 patients developed occlusal discrepancy, another 2 had postoperative mobility at fracture site, and 1 developed plate failure and subsequent infection, which was treated by removal of the plate under antibiotic coverage. One patient treated by 3-dimensional plates had tooth damage.

Statistical analysis: Chi-square test.

Conclusion: The results of this study suggested that the treatment of mandibular fractures (symphysis, parasymphysis, and angle) with 3-dimensional plates provided 3-dimensional stability and carried low morbidity and infection rates. The only probable limitations of 3-dimensional plates were excessive implant material due to the extra vertical bars incorporated for countering the torque forces.

No MeSH data available.


Related in: MedlinePlus

(a, b) Distribution of fracture site, favorability of fracture site, and methods of fixation of fracture site
© Copyright Policy - open-access
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC3814664&req=5

Figure 12: (a, b) Distribution of fracture site, favorability of fracture site, and methods of fixation of fracture site

Mentions: In our study, interpersonal violence accounted for 14.28% of the cases, fall injury accounts for 28.58% of cases of mandible fracture [Table 1] road traffic accidents were responsible for the majority of cases (57.14%) of mandible fractures. This is in accordance with the study by Bormann et al[7] [Table 1]. Out of 28 patients in our study, 18 were male (64.29%) and 10 (35.71%) were female Table 2. This male dominance was also reported by Haug et al.[8] The age group most commonly affected was 21-30 years (40%). Eight patients had bilateral mandible fracture and 12 had unilateral fracture. The most common site of mandible fracture was parasymphysis (35%) and angle (35%), followed by body (20%) and symphysis (10%) [Table 3, Graph 1].


Conventional 2.0 mm miniplates versus 3-D plates in mandibular fractures.

Sadhwani BS, Anchlia S - Ann Maxillofac Surg (2013)

(a, b) Distribution of fracture site, favorability of fracture site, and methods of fixation of fracture site
© Copyright Policy - open-access
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
Show All Figures
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC3814664&req=5

Figure 12: (a, b) Distribution of fracture site, favorability of fracture site, and methods of fixation of fracture site
Mentions: In our study, interpersonal violence accounted for 14.28% of the cases, fall injury accounts for 28.58% of cases of mandible fracture [Table 1] road traffic accidents were responsible for the majority of cases (57.14%) of mandible fractures. This is in accordance with the study by Bormann et al[7] [Table 1]. Out of 28 patients in our study, 18 were male (64.29%) and 10 (35.71%) were female Table 2. This male dominance was also reported by Haug et al.[8] The age group most commonly affected was 21-30 years (40%). Eight patients had bilateral mandible fracture and 12 had unilateral fracture. The most common site of mandible fracture was parasymphysis (35%) and angle (35%), followed by body (20%) and symphysis (10%) [Table 3, Graph 1].

Bottom Line: Chi-square test.The results of this study suggested that the treatment of mandibular fractures (symphysis, parasymphysis, and angle) with 3-dimensional plates provided 3-dimensional stability and carried low morbidity and infection rates.The only probable limitations of 3-dimensional plates were excessive implant material due to the extra vertical bars incorporated for countering the torque forces.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Government Dental College and Hospital, Ahmedabad, Gujarat, India.

ABSTRACT

Aim: To compare and evaluate the treatment outcome and postoperative complications in mandibular fractures using 2- and 3-dimensional miniplates.

Materials and methods: This study consisted of a sample of 28 patients (40 fracture sites) divided randomly but equally (single-blind control trial study) into two groups. Each group contains 14 patients (20 similar fracture sites in each group). Group 1 was treated with open reduction and internal fixation using 3-dimensional (3-D) miniplates. Group II was treated using 2-dimensional (2-D) 2-mm miniplates.

Results: Out of 14 patients treated by conventional 2-mm miniplates, 2 patients developed occlusal discrepancy, another 2 had postoperative mobility at fracture site, and 1 developed plate failure and subsequent infection, which was treated by removal of the plate under antibiotic coverage. One patient treated by 3-dimensional plates had tooth damage.

Statistical analysis: Chi-square test.

Conclusion: The results of this study suggested that the treatment of mandibular fractures (symphysis, parasymphysis, and angle) with 3-dimensional plates provided 3-dimensional stability and carried low morbidity and infection rates. The only probable limitations of 3-dimensional plates were excessive implant material due to the extra vertical bars incorporated for countering the torque forces.

No MeSH data available.


Related in: MedlinePlus