Treatment outcome of mandibular fracture using two types of 2.0 mm fixation plate
Article Sidebar
Main Article Content
Abstract
The objective of the study was to study demographic data, clinical data, the use of fixation device, and outcome of open reduction and internal fixation relationship for mandibular fracture between locking plate 2.0 mm and miniplate 2.0 mm system in mandibular fracture patients at Khon Kaen Regional Hospital (KKH). The sample group was the patients having mandibular fracture in KKH from January 1, 2014-March 31, 2021. The data were collected from Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery Department. Descriptive statistics were employed. Its factor relationship was confirmed by chi-squared test and Fisher’s exact test. For the results, a total of 73 patients from 293 mandibular fracture patients met inclusion criteria. The ratio between male to female ratio was 6.3 : 1. The majority of participants aged between 20-29 years. The statistical difference on gender and age of two groups was not significant at 95% confidence interval (p > 0.05). In terms of behavior risk factors, 60.3% of participants drank alcohol. The two groups had no significant statistical difference with confidence level lower than 0.05 (p > 0.05). Most of bone had single fracture line (57.5%). Bone fracture was at symphysis (58.9%) followed by angle (28.8%). Extraoral surgical method was used by 60.3%. Postoperative MMF standing at 74.0% was found in 2.0 mm miniplate which was more than that in 2.0 mm locking plate. This revealed significant statistical difference. There was no significant statistical difference on demographic and clinical data in relation to bone metal plate. Complications after treatment were found in 4 cases (5.5%). Three cases of wound infection occurred i.e., 2 occurred in locking plate group, and 1 in miniplate group. One complication was wound dehiscence which was in miniplate group. All of complications were minor. In comparing treatment between locking plate 2.0 and miniplate 2.0 using Fisher’s exact test, their complication after treatment had no statistical difference (p > 0.05).Treating fracture of the mandible with locking plate 2.0 and miniplate 2.0 had not produced complications which were significantly different. Thus, factors relevant to complexity of the fracture location, patient’s risk behavior, patient’s socioeconomic status, and availability of surgical instruments should be considered before making decision on types of bone metal plate
Article Details
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
The opinions and content expressed in the articles are solely those of the individual authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the journal or the authors’ affiliated institutions. Authors are fully responsible for the accuracy and correctness of their work.
Any reuse, reproduction, or redistribution of the articles, content, data, or images in other forms requires prior written permission from the Thai Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery
References
Murray JM. Mandible fractures and dental trauma. Emerg Med Clin North Am. 2013;31:553-73.
Kruger E, Tennant M. Fractures of the mandible and maxilla: a 10 year analysis. Australas Med J. 2016;9:17-24.
Hansasuta C. Facial bone fracture: a study of 612 cases.Thai J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 1992;6:5-9.
Kangvonkit P, Thearachote P. Facial bone fracture: a study of 1415 cases. Thai J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 1995;9:3-7.
Thearachote P, Kangvonkit P. Maxillofacial Injuries in Chonburi Hospital: a study of 2478 cases. Thai J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2003;17:99-106.
Boonkasem S, Tharanon W. Maxillofacial injuries at Khon Kaen Hospital: a review of 342 cases. Thai J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 1995;9:8-13.
Bunchaleow N. Maxillofacial injuries in Surin Hospital: a study in 2997 cases. Thai J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2005;19:75-9.
Janvanissthaporn K. Mandibular fractures: a study at Suratthani Regional Hospital. Thai J Oral Maxillofac Surg.2009;23:38-49.
Juthakitti C. Clinical outcomes in the treatment of mandibular fractures using Thai mini-plates and screws: a prospective study. Thai J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2014;28:24-32.
Champy M, Lodde JP, Schmitt R. Mandible osteosynthesis by miniature screwed plates via buccal approach. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 1978;6:14-21.
Cawood JI. Small plate osteosynthesis of mandible fracture. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 1985;23:77-91.
Sauerbier S, Kuenz J, Hauptmann S, Hoogendijk CF,Liebehenschel N, Schön R, et al. Clinical aspects of a 2.0 mm locking plate system for mandibular fracture surgery.J Craniomaxillofac Surg. 2010;38:501-4.
Sauerbier S, Scho NR, Otten JE, Schmelzeisen R, Gutwald R. The development of plate and screw osteosynthesis for the treatment of mandibular fractures e literature review. J Craniomaxillofac Surg. 2008;36:251-9.
Ellis E 3rd, Graham J. Use of a 2.0 mm locking plate/screw system for mandibular fracture surgery. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2002;60:642-5.
Gutwald R, Alpert B, Schmelzeisen R. Principle and stability of locking plates. Keio J Med. 2003;52:21-4.
Wusiman P, Tuerxun J, Yaolidaxi B, Moming A. Locking plate system versus standard plate fixation in the management of mandibular fractures: meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. J Craniofac Surg. 2017;28:1456-61.
Wusiman P, Taxifulati D, Weidong L, Moming A. Three-dimensional versus standard miniplate, lag screws versus miniplate, locking plate versus non-locking miniplates: management of mandibular fracture, a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Craniofac Surg. 2019;14:66-80.
Daniel WW. Biostatistics: a foundation of analysis in the health sciences. 6th ed. New York: John Wiley & Sons; 1995.
Haug RH, Street CC, Goltz M. Does plate adaptation affect stability? A biomechanical comparison of locking and nonlocking plates. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2002;60:1319-26.
Chiodo TA, Ziccardi VB, Jana IM, Sabitini C. Failure strength of 2.0 locking versus 2.0 conventional Synthes mandibular plates: a laboratory model. J Oral Maxillofac Surg.2006;64:1475-9.
Camino JR, Moraes RB, Landes C, Luz JGC. Comparison of a 2.0-mm locking system with conventional 2.0- and 2.4-mm systems in the treatment of mandibular fractures:a randomized controlled trial. Oral Maxillofac Surg.2017;21:327-34.
Yang L, Patil PM. Comparative evaluation of 2.0 mm locking plate system vs 2.0 mm non-locking plate system for mandibular angle fracture fixation: a prospective randomized study. Eur Rev Med Pharmacol Sci. 2015;19:552-6.
Collins CP, Leonard GP, Tolas A, Alcalde R. A prospective randomized clinical trial comparing 2.0-mm locking plates to 2.0-mm standard plates in treatment of mandible fractures. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2004;62:1392-5.
Zhan S, Jiang Y, Cheng Z, Ye J. A meta-analysis comparing the 2.0-mm locking plate system with the 2.0-mm non locking plate system in treatment of mandible fractures.J Craniofac Surg. 2014;25:2094-7.