Comparison of single versus two non-compression miniplates in the management of unfavourable angle fracture of the mandible: a prospective randomized clinical study

New design titanium miniplate versus conventional miniplate in treatment of mandibular angle fractures: A comparative study

Introduction

Mandibular angle fracture (MAF) is the second most common site of all fractures of the mandible with the highest complication rate. Management of MAF has evolved in the past four decades. The purpose of the prospective study was to compare the efficacy of new design titanium miniplate (NDM) with conventional titanium miniplate (CTM) in the treatment of MAF.

Objectives

Mouth opening, occlusion, bite force measurement, and radiographs compared preoperatively and first week, first month and third month postoperatively.

Materials and Method

Fourteen patients diagnosed with MAF were randomly divided into two groups: Group A (seven patients) was treated with NDM and Group B (seven patients) with CTM. Patients were assessed preoperatively and postoperatively at an interval of one week, one month and three months.

Results

Repeated measures ANOVA and Post hoc Tukey test showed a significant increase in bite force and mouth opening for both groups in first and third postoperative months. Unpaired t-test showed slightly better mouth opening in Group B and slightly higher bite force in Group A.

Discussion

Both miniplates fulfilled all the study objectives and equally satisfactory healing was seen at the end of third month. NDM offers better stability, rigidity, and anatomic reduction of the fracture with a drawback of difficulty in adaptation and increased operative timing compared to CTM. Hence, we would like to conclude that both miniplates are equally efficient in the treatment of non-comminuted angle fractures with the NDM having upper hand in stability.

One miniplate versus two miniplates in the fixation of mandibular angle fractures. An updated systematic review and meta-analysis

PURPOSE

The aim of this study is to compare the outcomes after using one miniplate fixation in the external oblique ridge versus two miniplate fixation for mandibular angle fractures.

METHODS

A systematic review of MEDLINE (via PubMed), Scopus and Cochrane Library database was performed (last search date: 04 February 2022) according to the PRISMA guidelines. The research question was addressed using the PICO criteria. Only comparative studies between the two techniques were included. Random-effects model meta-analyses were performed.

RESULTS

Seventeen studies, comprising a total of 1667 patients, 846 undergoing one miniplate fixation and 854 undergoing two miniplate fixation for mandibular angle fractures were identified. No statistically significant differences were observed regarding surgical site infection (odds ratio [OR]= 0.94, 95% confidence interval [CI]: [0.69] - [1.28], p = 0.68, I²=0.00%), post-operative malocclusion (OR= 0.97, 95% CI: [0.53] - [1.18], p = 0.25, I²=0.00%), post-operative neurosensory dysfunction (OR= 0.67, 95% CI: [0.37] - [1.22], p = 0.19, I²=73.93%), pseudoarthrosis formation (OR=0.90, 95% CI: [0.58] - [(1.39], p = 0.63, I²=0.00%). Wound dehiscence was marginally less common in the one miniplate group (OR=0.52, 95% CI: [0.28] - [0.98], p = 0.04, I²=54.34%). The probability of scarring formation (OR=0.13, 95% CI: [0.05] - [0.32], p = 0.00, I²=0.00%) and hardware failure (OR=0.36, 95% CI [0.21] - [0.62], p = 0.00, I²=29.33%) were statistically significantly higher in the two miniplates arm.

CONCLUSION

One miniplate fixation and two miniplates fixation of mandibular angle fractures have similar results regarding post operative infection, malocclusion, neurosensory dysfunction and pseudoarthrosis formation while wound dehiscence, hardware failure and scarring seem to be more common when two miniplates are used as a fixation technique.

Feasibility of Implant Strain Measurement for Assessing Mandible Bone Regeneration

Nonunion is one of the most dreaded complications after operative treatment of mandible fractures or after mandible reconstruction using vascularized and non-vascularized bone grafts. Often diagnosis is made at advanced stage of disease when pain or complications occur. Devices that monitor fracture healing and bone regeneration continuously are therefore urgently needed in the craniomaxillofacial area. One promising approach is the strain measurement of plates. An advanced prototype of an implantable strain measurement device was tested after fixation to a locking mandible reconstruction plate in multiple compression experiments to investigate the potential functionality of strain measurement in the mandibular region. Compression experiments show that strain measurement devices work well under experimental conditions in the mandibular angle and detect plate deformation in a reliable way. For monitoring in the mandibular body, the device used in its current configuration was not suitable. Implant strain measurement of reconstruction plates is a promising methodical approach for permanent monitoring of bone regeneration and fracture healing in the mandible. The method helps to avoid or detect complications at an early point in time after operative treatment.

Transbuccal vs. Intraoral Approach using an Angulated Screwdriver in Fixation of a Mandibular Angle Fracture

Objectives:

This study aimed to evaluate surgical stability and cosmetic outcomes in patients with mandibular angle fractures (MAFs) using an angled screwdriver (ASD) versus transbuccal trocar (TBT) for single locking plate fixation.

Methods:

A prospective cohort clinical study was done on 44 male patients (88%) and 6 (12% females patients with MAFs, categorized into 2 groups. Group A patients were treated with strictly intraoral vestibular incision using an angulated screwdriver; group B was treated with TBT. Both groups placed a single locking 2.0 mm mini-plates at the inferior border. The main outcome variables were the perioperative complication rate.

Results:

There were no statistical differences between both groups regarding postoperative wound dehiscence, screw or/and plate looseness, infection rate, and inferior dental nerve injury. The study (ASD) approach took 28.10±3.3minutes, while the TBT approach took 37.40±1.75minutes, indicating a highly significant difference in operating time (P=0.001). Post-operative edema had decreased significantly in the ASD group.

Conclusion:

According to the present results, a strictly intraoral approach for ASD enabled stable fixation of MAFs using a single mini-locking plate. This can significantly reduce operation time and postoperative edema and prevent extraoral scarring.

Is the Use of Intermaxillary Fixation Screws an Alternative to Erich Arch Bars for Maxillomandibular Fixation During Management of Maxillofacial Fractures? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Study Design

Systematic review and meta-analysis.

Objective

Maxillomandibular fixation (MMF) is a step of paramount importance during the management of maxillofacial trauma. Erich arch bars are being used for this purpose for decades but with advances in maxillofacial trauma management, intermaxillary fixation screws came into existence and are being used routinely. The present study was designed to identify if the intermaxillary fixation screws are really an alternative to Erich arch bars for management of maxillofacial trauma.

Methodology

An exhaustive literature search was conducted in May 2020 on various electronic databases and studies comparing Erich arch bars and intermaxillary fixation screws were recruited for the analysis. Random-effects model with Mantel Haenszel statistics was used to analyze oral hygiene and duration of achieving MMF.

Results

A total of 96 studies were identified, out of which 8 studies were included in the meta-analysis. There was no statistically significant difference in oral hygiene status of the patients in both the groups. Intermaxillary fixations screws required statistically significantly less time in achieving MMF. Needle stick injury was prominently seen with the use of Erich arch bar whereas other complications like mucosal coverage, root injury, screw loosening and screw fracture makes the use of intermaxillary fixation screws questionable.

Conclusion

The present meta-analysis suggests that there is not enough evidence to recommend the use of intermaxillary fixation screws as an alternative to Erich arch bars. Further research with large sample size, high quality evidence and better methodology is recommended in this direction.

Management of Mandible Angle Fractures With a Right Angle Drill: Description of Technique

ABSTRACT

Management of mandible angle fractures can be challenging within the confines of the oral cavity where the use of linear instruments may result in structural weakness or malalignment secondary to improper placement. A right angle drill can facilitate a more ergonomic approach, with direct perpendicular placement of the instrument over the angle fracture. In addition, local soft tissue strain is minimized, and the need for a transcutaneous exposure can be avoided for additional plate placement. The right angle drill technique is simple, reproducible, and can be easily incorporated into routine mandible angle fracture management.

Analysis of Complication in Mandibular Angle Fracture: Champy Technique Versus Rigid Fixation

INTRODUCTION

The mandibular angle endures tension and compression during mastication, and proper internal fixation is essential when a fracture occurs. The authors analyzed the complication rate between Champy technique and rigid fixation, used in the treatment of mandibular angle fracture.

METHODS

The retrospective study included patients with mandibular angle fracture in single center, from January 2003 to December 2019. The patients were categorized into 2 groups by fixation method of angle fracture: Champy technique which uses single miniplate and rigid fixation which uses multiple miniplate, reconstruction plate, compression plate, lag screw, and wire. Pearson chi-square test was used to analyze the complication rates.

RESULTS

A total of 64 patients met inclusion criteria. Thirty-four patients had isolated angle fractures and 30 patients had multiple mandibular fractures. In isolated angle fracture, there were no significant differences in all complications between the Champy technique group and rigid fixation group. In multiple mandibular fractures, there were no significant differences in all complications between 2 groups.

CONCLUSIONS

For isolated angle fractures, Champy technique is a reliable treatment method. Additionally, in case of multiple mandibular fractures, Champy technique is an effective fixation method in angle fractures when proper rigid fixation is performed for accompanying fractures.

Complications after different methods for fixation of mandibular angle fractures: network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

The aim of this review was to compare mandibular angle fracture fixation methods that were evaluated through randomized clinical trials considering postoperative complications. Additionally, different treatment methods were ranked based on their performance. A systematic review was performed based on the Cochrane and PRISMA guidelines. The quality of evidence and network meta-analysis were conducted using the GRADE tool and R software, respectively. Four databases were searched, and the papers were selected based on the PICOS strategy. A total of 3584 papers were found. After screening 15 papers were included. One plate placed on lateral border (tension zone) presented lower risk than one plate placed on superior border (tension zone) for infection [risk ratio (RR): 0.48, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.33 to 0.71] and plate removal necessity (RR: 0.44, 95% CI: 0.28 to 0.69), with moderate quality of evidence. There were no significant differences among the mandibular angle fracture treatments for malocclusion and paraesthesia outcomes. In conclusion, one plate placed on the lateral border in the tension zone is the best choice regarding postoperative infection and plate removal necessity when fixing mandibular angle fractures. None of the tested fixation methods were associated with a significant risk of malocclusion and paraesthesia events.

What is a better modality of maxillomandibular fixation: bone-supported arch bars or Erich arch bars? A systematic review and meta-analysis

Any procedure that aims to manage maxillofacial fracture is incomplete without meticulous maxillomandibular fixation (MMF). For decades, Erich arch bars (EABs) have been used for this purpose, but with the advent of bone-supported arch bars (BSABs), more surgeons now prefer them to conventional EABs. The present study was designed to identify which of the two methods is best. An exhaustive literature search was conducted in June 2020 on various electronic databases to select studies that compared EABs and BSABs. Outcomes such as duration of placement, stability, oral hygiene, and complications such as damage to the roots of teeth and needle-stick injury, were analysed. A total of 716 studies were identified, of which seven were eligible for inclusion. The meta-analysis showed that the use of BSABs is significantly faster with no needle penetration and better oral hygiene. Both arch bars are equally stable, but root damage is an associated complication. The available literature to date shows that BSABs are a better option than EABs. However, further research is recommended, as these studies are associated with various confounding factors.

Combination of Rigid and Nonrigid Fixation Versus Nonrigid Fixation for Bilateral Mandibular Fractures: A Multicenter Randomized Controlled Trial

PURPOSE

We aimed to compare complication rates and functional outcomes in patients with bilateral mandibular fractures treated with different degrees of internal fixation rigidity.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

This international, multicenter randomized controlled trial included adults with bilateral mandibular fractures located at either the angle and body, angle and symphysis, or body and symphysis. Patients were treated with either a combination of rigid fixation for the anterior fracture and nonrigid fixation for the posterior fracture (mixed fixation) or nonrigid fixation for both fractures. The primary outcome was complications within 6 weeks after surgery. Secondary outcomes were complications within 3 months, Helkimo dysfunction index, and mandibular mobility at 6 weeks and 3 months after surgery.

RESULTS

Of the 315 patients enrolled, 158 were randomized to the mixed fixation group and 157 to the nonrigid fixation group. The overall complication rate at 6 weeks in the intention-to-treat population was 9.6% (95% confidence interval [CI], 5.3% to 15.6%) in the mixed fixation group and 7.8% (95% CI, 4.0% to 13.5%) in the nonrigid fixation group. With an unadjusted odds ratio of 1.25 (95% CI, 0.51 to 3.17), there were no statistically significant differences in complication rates between the 2 groups (P = .591). A multivariable model for complication risk at 6 weeks found no significant differences between treatment groups, but patients with moderate or severe displacement had a higher complication rate than those with no or minimal displacement (adjusted odds ratio, 4.58; 95% CI, 1.16 to 18.06; P = .030). There were no significant between-group differences in complication rates at 3 months. Moreover, no significant differences in Helkimo dysfunction index and mandibular mobility index at 6 weeks and 3 months were found between groups according to treatment allocated and treatment received.

CONCLUSIONS

A combination of rigid and nonrigid fixation in patients with bilateral mandibular fracture has similar complication rates and functional outcomes to nonrigid fixation for both fractures.