Root trauma and tooth loss through the application of pre-drilled transgingival fixation screws

Complications of Mandibular Fracture Repair

Mandible fracture management has evolved dramatically. Therefore, the variety of surgical complications associated with mandibular fractures, and their incidences, have continued to change as well. This article aims to assess the most common and most concerning complications that can occur secondary to management of mandibular fractures by examining categories of complication types. This article also explores factors and techniques associated with reduced rates of complications as well as the management of complications.

Comparison of Efficacy and Safety of Hybrid Arch Bar with Erich Arch Bar in the Management of Mandibular Fractures: A Randomized Clinical Trial

Study Design

A clinical randomized control trial.

Objective

To compare the efficacy and safety of Hybrid arch bar (HAB) with Erich arch bar (EAB) in fracture management of the mandible.

Methods

In this randomized clinical trial, 44 patients were divided into 2 groups:- Group 1, N = 23 (EAB group) and Group 2, N = 21 (HAB group). The primary outcome was time taken for the application of arch bar, while the inner and outer glove puncture, operator prick, oral hygiene, arch bar stability, complications of HAB, and cost comparison were secondary outcomes.

Results

The time taken for the application of arch bar in group 2 was significantly shorter than group 1 (55.66 ± 17.869 min vs 82.04 ± 12.197 min) and the frequency of outer glove puncture was also significantly lesser for group 2 (0 punctures vs 9 punctures). Better oral hygiene was found in group 2. EAB was cost-effective than HAB (Rs 700 ± 239.79 vs Rs 1742.50 ± 257.14). The stability of the arch bar was comparable in both groups. Group 2 had associated complications of root injury in 2 out of 252 screws placed and the screw head got covered by soft tissue in 137 out of 252 screws placed.

Conclusions

Thus, HAB was better than EAB with a shorter time of application, less risk of prick injury, and improved oral hygiene.Clinical trial registry name- clinical trials registry- India, URL-http://ctri.nic.in, registration number- CTRI/2020/06/025966.

Dental Root Injuries Caused by Osteosynthesis Screws in Orthognathic Surgery-Comparison of Conventional Osteosynthesis and Osteosynthesis by CAD/CAM Drill Guides and Patient-Specific Implants

BACKGROUND/AIM

The primary aim was to evaluate the prevalence and localisation of dental injuries caused by osteosynthesis screws during orthognathic surgery, comparing two different CAD/CAM planning/surgical approaches through retrospective evaluation of post-operative computed tomography.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

This study considered all patients who underwent orthognathic surgery from 2010-2019. The examination for dental root injuries between conventional osteosynthesis (Maxilla conventional cohort) and osteosynthesis with patient-specific implant (Maxilla PSI cohort) was performed by evaluating the post-operative CT scans.

RESULTS

A total of 126 patients were included in the study. Among the 61 patients of the Maxilla conventional cohort, 10 dental root injuries in 8 patients (13.1%) were detected in the post-operative CT scan, representing 1.5% (n = 10/651) of the osteosynthesis screws inserted in proximity of the alveolar crest. No dental injury occurred following osteosynthesis in the 65 patients of the Maxillary PSI cohort (n = 0/773 screws) (p < 0.001). During a mean follow-up period of 13 months after primary surgery, none of the injured teeth showed evidence of periapical alterations and no endodontic treatments were necessary.

CONCLUSIONS

Maxillary positioning using CAD/CAM-fabricated drill/osteotomy guide and osteosynthesis with PSI can significantly reduce the risk for dental injury compared to the conventional procedure. However, the clinical significance of the detected dental injuries was rather minor.

Radiographic assessment of the response of teeth following trauma during screw placement for maxillo-mandibular fixation

BACKGROUND/AIM

Maxillo-mandibular fixation (MMF) screws have gained popularity in recent years for inter-maxillary fixation. MMF screw application involves the risk of dental injury. However, knowledge about the healing responses after root damage in humans is limited, thereby warranting the need to classify the radiographic assessment of healing to enable better prediction of the healing response and effective management of the potential complications. The aim of this study was to assess and classify the radiographic assessment of the responses after root damage to evaluate the long-term outcomes.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

The dental records of patients who underwent orthognathic surgery or trauma management during 2014-2016 at an Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery Department were retrospectively analyzed. The data regarding dental injuries resulting from MMF screw application were evaluated. In total, 16 patients with 34 roots damaged from MMF screw application were enrolled. Post-operative orthopantomographs were analyzed by visual inspection of the affected areas to clarify the extent of root healing. The inter- and intra-rater reliability assessments were subsequently performed.

RESULTS

The results indicated substantial inter- and intra-rater reliability of the responses. Most cases of root damage that were not radiographically related to the pulp (Schulte-Geers Class III defects) had complete or partial healing responses. In addition, 20% of the defects related to the pulp had additional resorption of the bone/dental tissues during the follow-up period.

CONCLUSIONS

Three different radiographic responses of root damage following MMF screw trauma were identified. Understanding these different responses is important to guide the management of the potential complications. This proposed radiographic assessment can be used to present root healing data in a more standardized and reliable manner.

The risk of tooth root injuries using cortical screws for intermaxillary fixation and osteosynthesis plates - A retrospective analysis

Intermaxillary fixation (IMF) and osteosynthesis plates (OP) are widely used for the non-surgical and surgical treatment of mandible and condyle fractures. The aim of this retrospective study was to analyze the frequency of tooth root injuries by IMF and OP screws. Electronic patient reports (2004-2013) were screened for patients treated with either IMF screws and/or OP in the Department of Oral- and Maxillofacial Surgery, University Medical Center Mainz, Germany. The frequency and the position of endangered and injured teeth were analyzed by orthopantomogram (OPTG) and cone beam computer tomography (CBCT). Next, possible predictive factors for tooth root injuries, namely interdental- and crestal distance, screw length and distance between tooth root and screw were evaluated. Further, the accuracy of OPTG vs. CBCT concerning the diagnosis of tooth root injuries was analyzed. Three-hundred sixty-six patients were included and 3388 teeth were defined as endangered by IMF- and OP screws. Overall, 16 injured teeth (0.5%) in 13 patients (3.55%) were detected. Nine injuries (56.3%) were caused by IMF- and seven injuries (43.8%) by OP screws. Three teeth were non-vital, one tooth had to be extracted. No correlation between the predictive factors crestal distance, screw length and tooth root injuries was found. If tooth injury occurred, a significant correlation between the interdental distance and the distance between tooth root and screw was found (κ = 0.48; p < 0,0001). Comparison between OPTG vs. CBCT demonstrated that many of the injuries that were seen in the OPTG (n = 230) could not be verified in the CBCT scans (n = 16) (κ = 0.12). To conclude, screws for IMF and OP can be considered as a safe procedure concerning the risk of tooth root injuries.

Erich arch bar versus hanger plate technique for intermaxillary fixation in fracture mandible: A prospective comparative study

Introduction:

Various methods have been described for intermaxillary fixation (IMF) for treatment of faciomaxillary injuries. Many studies have been described to evaluate the efficacy of different methods. Hanger plate method has not been commonly used. The aim of the present study was to compare the advantages and disadvantages of this method over Erich arch bar in mandibular fracture.

Materials and Methods:

Sixty patients of only mandibular fracture presenting to trauma center requiring open reduction and internal fixation under general anesthesia were randomly allocated to Group A and Group B comprising thirty patients in each. Group A included patients who received IMF with Erich arch bar. Group B included patients who received IMF with hanger plate method. The two groups were compared for time duration of intermaxillary procedure, total duration of surgery, oral hygiene score, postoperative occlusion, and complications.

Results:

The average time of intermaxillary procedure, total duration of surgery, and wire prick injuries were more in Group A. Oral hygiene score was significantly better in Group B. Postoperative occlusion was comparable between the two groups. There was screw loosening in four patients in Group B, but none had tooth root injury. The cost of material for IMF was more in Group B.

Conclusion:

IMF with hanger plate method is more safe and efficacious compared to Erich arch bar in the treatment of mandibular fractures.

Postoperative CT of the Midfacial Skeleton After Trauma: Review of Normal Appearances and Common Complications

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this article is to describe the CT appearance of the midfacial skeleton after surgical repair of posttraumatic Le Fort, nasoorbitoethmoidal (NOE), and frontal sinus fractures. Several of the more commonly encountered complications will also be described.

CONCLUSION

Surgery after midfacial trauma is aimed at restoring both form and function. Knowledge of the principal tenets of Le Fort, NOE, and frontal sinus fracture repair is vital for radiologists to accurately assess the adequacy of treatment on postoperative CT and provide meaningful reports for the surgeon.

Drill-related root injury caused by intraoperative intermaxillary fixation: an analysis of 1067 screw applications

BACKGROUND/AIMS

Intermaxillary fixation is a standard procedure for the treatment of mandibular fractures or in orthognathic surgery. Predrilling for screws poses the risk of accidental tooth root injury, potentially leading to further pathological processes. Limited evidence about accidental tooth injury during intermaxillary fixation is available due to heterogenous study designs. The aim of this study was to evaluate the risk of root trauma using predrilled transgingival fixation screws and the clinical consequences for the affected teeth.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

In this retrospective study, the data of open reduction and internal fixation surgery files with intraoperative application of predrilled intermaxillary fixation screws were analysed. The postoperative radiographic images were evaluated for the occurrence of tooth root injury. Patients diagnosed with root injury were clinically followed up with respect to the dental health for the affected teeth.

RESULTS

A total of 133 radiologically diagnosed tooth root injuries were recorded (12.5% of screws). The median follow-up interval was 16 months (range: 3-77 months). The return rate was 49.5% for all patients. Of these, four of the injured teeth (3%) needed endodontic treatment. No toothache was reported, no tooth was lost, and no negative impact on periodontal health was clinically evident.

CONCLUSION

Intermaxillary fixation with predrilled transgingival screws is a safe way to manage mandibular fractures. The incidence of tooth root injury is not uncommon, but the adverse side effects are rare and the health of the affected teeth is mostly not compromised.

Intermaxillary Fixation Screw Morbidity in Treatment of Mandibular Fractures-A Retrospective Study

PURPOSE

The aim of the present retrospective study was to investigate the morbidity of screws used for intermaxillary fixation (IMF) in the treatment of mandibular fractures. A review of the published data was also performed for a comparison of outcomes. Our hypothesis was that the use of screws for IMF of mandibular fractures would result in minimal morbidity.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Patients treated for mandibular fractures from 2007 to 2013, using screws for IMF, using the international diagnosis code for mandibular fracture, DS026, were anonymously selected (Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Rigshospitalet, University Hospital of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark). The fracture type, radiographic findings, treatment modality, screw type and number, and root damage were recorded. For the outcome comparison, a review of the published data regarding iatrogenic dental root damage caused by screw fixation was performed in May 2015.

RESULTS

A total of 156 patients had undergone IMF with screws. The total number of screws was 793. The incidence of root lesions was 0.25% centrally and 0.88% peripherally. The incidence of screw loss was 0.13% and that of screw loosening was 1.89%. In the review, 737 related reports were identified in a search of PubMed and the Cochrane Library. Of these, 25 were considered suitable for inclusion. A lack of valid evidence resulted in a descriptive analysis, because a meta-analysis of the data was not possible.

CONCLUSIONS

The results of the present retrospective study have shown that the use of screws is a valid choice for IMF in mandibular fracture treatment with minimal morbidity. The 793 screws used for IMF resulted in a negligible amount of central and peripheral tooth root trauma.

Severe tooth loss after root damage caused by predrilled intermaxillary fixation screw: a case report

Intermaxillary fixation (IMF) with screws is routinely used as a conservative therapy or to obtain normal occlusion during the surgical procedure of open reduction and internal fixation for treating mandibular fractures. The risk of iatrogenic dental damage caused by interdental drilling is widely known. Several side effects are described, including loss of response to pulp sensibility testing, root fracture, and, loss of the tooth. This is a case report about a young man who had undergone temporary IMF treatment with a single proven root damage. The patient did not appear for follow-up but he presented 5 years afterward with local purulent osteomyelitis concerning the affected and the adjacent teeth. Osteotomy and extraction of two premolars and one molar were necessary for rehabilitation. This case report illustrates the importance of careful use of predrilled IMF screws and the necessity of frequent follow-ups in cases of proven tooth root damage due to IMF treatment.

Is There Enough Evidence to Regularly Apply Bone Screws for Intermaxillary Fixation in Mandibular Fractures?

PURPOSE

Intermaxillary fixation (IMF) is traditionally achieved with arch bars; however, this method has several well-known disadvantages and other techniques, such as bone screws, are available. This study evaluated current evidence regarding these IMF screws (IMFSs) for mandibular trauma and to assess whether this allows a change of treatment protocol for IMF.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A systematic electronic literature search was conducted in the PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane databases. Titles and abstracts retrieved from the search were screened and evaluated for inclusion and exclusion criteria. The full text of all relevant articles was read and citation lists were checked for any missing references. All randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were subjected to a quality assessment. Included articles were checked for outcome measurements concerning occlusion, operative time, oral hygiene, root trauma, wire-stick injuries, and mucosa overgrowth.

RESULTS

Twenty-two articles (17 case series, 4 RCTs, and 1 cohort study) were included. None of the RCTs scored high methodologic results in the quality assessment. The results suggest IMFSs have similar malocclusion rates as arch bars, fewer wire-stick injuries, improved oral hygiene, and shorter operative time. Root damage is less likely to occur with self-drilling screws and seldom requires treatment.

CONCLUSIONS

Although the methodologic quality of the included studies is poor, self-drilling IMFSs are recommended for temporary per-operative IMF of noncomminuted mandibular fractures. More high-quality studies are required to allow an evidence-based change of protocol.

[Intermaxillary intraoperative fixation of mandibular fractures: arch bars or fixation screws?]

INTRODUCTION

The gold standard management of mandibular fractures is open reduction and osteosynthesis associated with intermaxillary fixation. The use of intermaxillary fixation screws for 20 years has considerably reduced the number of intermaxillary fixation with arch bars. The aim of our review was to identify current indications and contraindications of each technique.

INTERMAXILLARY FIXATION TECHNIQUES

We present a short history and compare the two techniques with recently published assets, drawbacks, and complications.

DISCUSSION

The indications of intermaxillary fixation screws are uni- or bifocal fractures without or with minimal displacement. Their use is contraindicated in any other type of fracture, which should still be treated with arch bar fixation.