Conservative treatment of a mandibular condyle fracture: Comparing intermaxillary fixation with screws or arch bar. A randomised clinical trial

Patient outcomes and complications following various maxillomandibular fixation techniques: A systematic review and meta-analysis

PURPOSE

Currently, there are several methods of achieving maxillomandibular fixation (MMF), each with its unique operative considerations and subsequent patient outcomes and complications. In this study, we reviewed the literature to evaluate and compare all MMF methods.

METHODS

A systematic review of all MMF types was conducted and post-operative outcome data were analyzed and compared among the different types. Conventional Erich arch bars were compared to hybrid arch bars, MMF screws, and eyelet interdental wiring. A random-effects meta-analysis was used to determine the mean differences, and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) with a statistical significance of P < 0.05.

RESULTS

Among the 4234 articles identified, 24 were included, and 17 were meta-analyzed. Time to achieve MMF (-43.38 min; 95% CI, -58.20 to -28.56; P < 0.001), total operative time (-30.33 min; 95% CI, -61.05 to 0.39; P = 0.05), incidence of wire puncture injuries and glove perforations (0.11; 95% CI, 0.04 to 0.30; P < 0.001), and incidence of poor oral hygiene (0.08; 95% CI, 0.02 to 0.28; P < 0.001) were lower for alternative MMF interventions compared to those of the conventional Erich arch bars.

CONCLUSIONS

Alternative MMF methods required shorter operative time to achieve MMF and demonstrated other increased efficiencies of practice such as shorter total operative time and decreased glove perforations, when compared to conventional Erich arch bars. If a patient is a candidate for MMF, the presented alternative MMF techniques should be considered depending on the clinical context and availability of institutional resources.

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.

The Assessment of Intermaxillary Fixation and Open Reduction Using Skeletal Anchorage System Compared With Arch Bar in Mandible Fracture Based on CT Image

BACKGROUND

There are many different techniques to achieve intermaxillary fixation (IMF) for open reduction of mandible fractures. The arch bar has long been used as the gold standard of IMF to assist open reduction. However, owing to its long operating time, risk of needle stick injury, and gingival trauma, surgeons looked into different treatment options for IMF, such as the skeletal anchorage system (SAS). Therefore, this study aimed to compare the stability between IMF with arch bar and IMF with SAS based on computed tomography image.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

In this retrospective study, postoperative computed tomography and panoramic radiographs were taken 1 week and 6 months after surgery, respectively. The treatment of mandibular fractures using IMF with arch bar and SAS were compared by evaluating changes in the dental midlines and condyle positions. Thirty patients with mandibular fractures were enrolled into 2 groups-IMF with arch bar and IMF with SAS.

RESULTS

The arch bar showed slightly more deviation in dental midline. In SAS, the condyle moved more medially compared with the arch bar.

CONCLUSIONS

Skeletal anchorage system could be used for IMF with reliable stability in mandible fracture. There were no significant differences in the treatment outcome between the 2 groups.

Evidence-Based Medicine for Mandible Fracture Repair: Current Controversies and Future Opportunities

Mandibular fractures are among the most common facial fractures resulting from trauma. The nature of the injury, involved facial structures, presence of associated injuries, the dental status of the patient, comorbid conditions, and psychosocial context all must be considered by the surgeon when planning the optimal treatment for these patients. While consensus exists for many aspects of the management of mandibular trauma, some elements remain controversial. Three such topics-antibiotic therapy, treatment of subcondylar fractures, and management of the third molar-remain particularly controversial, with significant heterogeneity in practice patterns and without widely accepted evidence-based guidelines to standardize care. The goals of this work are to (1) review the historical perspective underlying these controversies, (2) summarize recent evidence shaping the current debate, and (3) highlight opportunities for continued efforts to identify best practices.

Compare the Efficacy of Open Reduction and Internal Fixation of Mandibular Fractures With and Without Use of Intra-Operative Inter-Maxillary Fixation

Mandible fractures are regularly encountered by maxillofacial surgeons and various treatment protocols are available for the management of these fractures. The aim of study compares the efficacy of open reduction and internal fixation of mandibular fractures with and without use of intra-operative inter-maxillary fixation. Twenty patients between age group ranging l8-65 years who reported with single mandibular fracture in Dental college in India, during Oct 2012-March 2015 were the study subjects. These patients were divided into two groups. In one group fracture reduction was done by using inter-maxillary fixation and miniplate fixation was done. In other group fracture reduction was done manually and then fractured fragments were held in position by the assistant and miniplate fixation was done. Post-operatively patients were evaluated for occlusion, bone alignment and soft tissue/hard tissue infection at 1st, 4th, 8th, 12th weeks in both the groups. Statistics done by using Spearman's Rank correlation coefficient and Mann-Whitney U test. It was observed thatthere was no statistically significant difference seen in both the groups in terms of post-operative occlusion, radiological alignment and soft/hard tissue infection. Statistically significant difference was seen when the mean operating time was compared. The Group A showed mean difference of 35.50 min more time than Group B. The results of our study suggested that, use of intra-operative IMF does not show any advantages in terms of post-operative occlusion, bone alignment and soft/hard tissue infection. We have concluded from the study that the increased intra-operative time for the placement of IMF increases the cost of the surgery in regard to equipment and theatre time. There is no benefit in terms of radiographic and clinical outcome. Hence use of intra-operative IMF can be avoided for ORIF of single mandibular fracture.

Open versus closed treatment for extracapsular fracture of the mandibular condyle

Objectives

Selection of treatment methods for mandibular condylar fractures remains controversial. In this study, we investigated treatment methods for condylar fractures to determine the indications for open or closed reduction.

Patients and Methods

Patients >12 years of age treated for mandibular condylar fractures with a follow-up period of ≥3 months were included in this study. The medical records of enrolled patients were reviewed for sex, age, fracture site, treatment method (open or closed reconstruction), postoperative intermaxillary fixation period, operation time, and complications. Radiological analysis of fracture fragment displacement and changes in ramal height difference was performed using computed tomography and panoramic radiography.

Results

A total of 198 patients was investigated, 48.0% (n=95) of whom underwent closed reduction and 52.0% (n=103) underwent open reduction. There was no significant correlation between reduction method and patient sex, age, or follow-up period. No statistically significant difference between the incidence of complications and treatment method was observed. None of the patients underwent open reduction of condylar head fracture. Binary logistic regression analysis showed that open reduction was significantly more frequent in patients with subcondylar fracture compared to in those with a fracture in the condylar head area. There was no statistically significant correlation between the groups and fracture fragment displacement. However, there was a significant difference between the treatment groups in amount of change in ramal height difference between the fractured and the non-fractured sides during treatment.

Conclusion

No significant clinical differences were found between the open and closed reduction methods in patients with mandibular condylar fractures. According to fracture site, closed reduction was preferred for condyle head fractures. There was no significant relationship between fracture fragment displacement and treatment method.

Focus on the use of maxillomandibular fixation in mandibular fracture oseosynthesis

OBJECTIVES

The objective of this study was to evaluate the efficiency of three methods of isolated mandibular fracture intraoperative reduction.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This 6-year retrospective study included patients with isolated extra-articular mandibular fractures who would benefit from osteosynthesis. The endpoint was postoperative occlusion according to the type of intraoperative immobilization: screws, arch, or manual reduction.

RESULTS

A total of 145 patients were included, with 233 fractures. Forty-five patients underwent manual reduction without maxillo-mandibular fixation (MMF), 51 MMF with screws, and 49 MMF with arch, with 11.1%, 5.9% and 4.1% of patients in these groups experiencing postoperative malocclusion, respectively. The overall malocclusion rate was 6.9%. There was no significant difference among the 3 methods according to univariate statistical analysis (p = 0.42) or after comparing MMF (grouping screws and arches) to manual reduction without MMF (p = 0.29).

CONCLUSION

This study did not show a significant difference between the different methods of intraoperative reduction of isolated extra-articular mandibular fractures, even though intraoperative MMF was much more commonly used for complex fractures. However, there is a non-significant tendency to get a better post-operative occlusal result with MMF, which remains the reference traitement. Intraoperative manual reduction without MMF may be used within trained teams in some instances.

LeFort Fractures

Consultations for management of facial fractures in the emergency setting are not uncommon for the oral maxillofacial surgeon, otolaryngologist, and/or plastic surgeon. This necessitates a knowledge foundation and working understanding of the evaluation, assessment, and timely management. Here, we will focus on the workup and management of LeFort fractures.

Use of Elastomeric Separators in Maxillofacial Fracture Reduction

Background

Management of maxilla and mandibular fractures are based on the principles of reduction, fixation and immobilization of the fracture segments.

Purpose

One of the processes of reduction is to apply continuous and gradual elastic traction by placing elastics from the upper and lower arch bars in a definite manner and direction as per the fracture line. Orthodontic elastic separators are versatile, and the major advantage is the higher traction forces as compared to conventional elastics.

Methods

Prestretched separator elastics were guided over the arch bar or fixed orthodontic appliances to provide desired traction.

Results

Orthodontic elastic separators are therefore versatile, and the major advantage is the higher traction forces as compared to conventional elastics. They provide an edge over the use of wires as they tend to break off by work hardening.

Conclusion

Therefore, we have adapted orthodontic separators and have used them in place of conventional elastics for the last 10 years with appreciable results after taking informed consent from the patients.

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.

Comparison between Erich arch bars and intermaxillary screws in maxillofacial fractures involving the dental occlusion: a meta-analysis

This systematic review aimed to compare the Erich arch bars (EABs) with intermaxillary fixation (IMF) screws in maxillofacial fractures involving dental occlusion on perioperative parameters. Four electronic databases were searched: MedLine (Pubmed), Web of Science, VHL, and Cochrane Library. Inclusion criteria comprised clinical trials comparing the two IMF methods, assessing at least one of the outcomes: occlusal stability, oral hygiene, quality of life, time to apply and remove IMF appliances, and complications. Risk of bias was evaluated through the Cochrane risk of bias tool. Fifteen papers were included in the qualitative analysis and 12 of those in the meta-analysis. Times for EABs application (mean difference (MD) 46.83; 95% confidence interval (CI): 30.63-63.02) and removal (MD 22.89; 95% CI 14.61-31.17) were longer compared with IMF screws. There is higher risk of glove perforation (risk ratio (RR) 3.81; 95% CI 2.41-6.04) and lower risk of iatrogenic injuries (RR 0.21; 95% CI 0.09-0.48) when placing EABs compared with IMF screws. No significant differences in plaque index were found (MD 1.07; 95% CI -0.17 to 2.31). The quality of this evidence ranged from very low to low and was mainly compromised by risk of bias assessment. Further studies are necessary to evaluate transurgical IMF stability and postoperative occlusal quality and quality of life when comparing EABs with IMF screws.

Establishing a Protocol for Closed Treatment of Mandibular Condyle Fractures with Dynamic Elastic Therapy

Treatment of mandibular condyle fractures is controversial. Open treatment achieves anatomic reduction with occlusal stability and faster functional recovery but risks facial nerve injury and jeopardizes joint capsule circulation which can lead to bone resorption. Traditional closed treatment avoids these issues but requires prolonged fixation and risks subsequent facial asymmetry, occlusal disturbance, and ankylosis. Rather than wires, closed treatment with elastics allows for customizable management of a healing fracture with ability to alter vector and degree of traction to restore vertical height and occlusion with less discomfort and decreased risk for ankylosis. In this protocol, unilateral condylar fractures were treated with class II elastics ipsilateral to injury and class I contralaterally. Class III elastics were used contralaterally if additional traction was required and Class II elastics were placed bilaterally for bilateral fractures. Patients were sequentially advanced from fixating to guiding to supportive elastics by titrating elastic vector to any dental midline incongruency or chin deviation. Six patients were treated with this protocol with six-month follow-up. Fracture patterns included displaced and dislocated fractures as well as intracapsular and extracapsular condylar fractures. All patients at completion of the protocol had objective centric occlusion with no subjective malocclusion, chin deviation, facial asymmetry, or temporomandibular joint pain. These early data demonstrate a safe and efficacious innovative protocol for closed treatment of mandibular condylar fractures with dynamic elastic therapy.

Changes in mandibular and articular dynamics associated with surgical versus nonsurgical treatment of mandibular condylar fractures: a systematic review with meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to evaluate the mandibular and articular dynamics and the presence of complications associated with surgical or nonsurgical treatments of condylar fractures.

STUDY DESIGN

Clinical trials that compared open reduction internal fixation and maxillomandibular fixation in patients with condylar fractures were included. We performed an electronic search of PubMed, Scopus, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and LILACS (Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences) databases starting from February 2017 and updated in January 2019 and found 467 articles. We evaluated methodologic quality by using the criteria from Cochrane's Collaboration Tool.

RESULTS

After independent screening of abstracts, we assessed the full texts of 88 articles; 9 studies were included for qualitative synthesis; but only 8 were included for the meta-analysis. Four studies were considered to have high risk of bias, and 5 were considered to have low risk. The risk ratio (RR = 0.20; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.13-0.32) was observed for complications. The quality of evidence, using GRADE software, was considered low for maximum mouth opening and protrusive movement and moderate for lateral excursion movement and complications.

CONCLUSIONS

This review suggested that open reduction internal fixation and maxillomandibular fixation are effective. However, surgical treatment presented higher objective parameters. Nonsurgical treatment presented a high index of complications, such as malocclusion, pain and deviation.

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.

FAMI Screws for Mandibulo-Maxillary fixation in mandibular fracture treatment - Clinico-radiological evaluation

Mandibulo-maxillary fixation (MMF) is indispensable for mandibular fracture treatment. Various means for MMF have been proposed, of which arch bars are widely considered to be the mainstay. However, disadvantages to this method have initiated a quest for an alternative, leading to the introduction of MMF screws. MMF screws have frequently been criticized for poor stability of fracture sites, root damage, hardware failure, and nerve damage. We retrospectively evaluate the FAMI (Fixation and Adaptation in Mandibular Injuries) screw in mandibular fracture treatment by scanning for clinically and radiologically visible complications. In total, 534 FAMI screws were used in the successful treatment of 96 males and 34 females. Condylar fractures were most commonly encountered, representing 120 of 241 fracture sites. 15 general fracture-related complications occurred, with the most common being nerve function impairment (3.8%) and postoperative malocclusion (4.6%). In nine cases (7%), clinically visible FAMI-screw-related complications occurred, with the most prevalent being screw loosening (2.3%) and mucosal signs of inflammation (3.1%). Duration of FAMI screws was associated with the occurrence of clinically visible complications (p = 0.042). Radiologically, clinically invisible dental hard tissue damage was noted in 21 individuals (16%). Therefore, FAMI screws seem to be a reliable and safe method for mandibulo-maxillary fixation.

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.

Treatment Outcomes for Isolated Maxillary Complex Fractures with Maxillomandibular Screws

Intermaxillary fixation (IMF) is a basic and fundamental principle in the management of patients with fractures of the maxillomandibular complex. There are several shortcomings related to the conventionally recommended tooth-mounted devices that are used to achieve IMF. To circumvent these, the use of bone-borne screws has been advocated. We present a series of maxillary fractures treated with IMF screws. Over a 12-month period, 15 cases of maxillary fracture were managed with open reduction and bone plate fixation. IMF screws were used to achieve IMF intraoperatively and for a short duration postoperatively. Eight cortical titanium screws were inserted transmucosally, two for each quadrant at the junction of the attached and mobile mucosa. Satisfactory occlusion was achieved in all the patients with few complications. IMF screw fixation was observed to be a safe and quick method for open reduction of maxillary fractures. Tooth-borne devices are associated with problems such as poor oral hygiene and periodontal health, extrusion of teeth, loss of tooth vitality, traumatic ulcers of buccal and labial mucosa, and needle stick injury to the operator. These procedures are also time consuming. The use of cortical bone screws is a quicker and safe alternative for achieving satisfactory IMF.

Evidence-Based Medicine in Facial Trauma

This article provides the reader with a comprehensive review of high-level evidence-based medicine in facial trauma and highlights areas devoid of high-level evidence. The article is organized in the order one might approach a clinical problem: starting with the workup, followed by treatment considerations, operative decisions, and postoperative treatments. Individual injuries are discussed within each section, with an overview of the available high-level clinical evidence. This article not only provides a quick reference for the facial traumatologist, but also allows the reader to identify areas that lack high-level evidence, perhaps motivating future endeavors.

Non-IMF mandibular fracture reduction techniques: A review of the literature

BACKGROUND

Intermaxillary fixation (IMF) techniques are commonly used in mandibular fracture treatment to reduce bone fragments and re-establish normal occlusion. However, non-IMF reduction techniques such as repositioning forceps may be preferable due to their quick yet adequate reduction. The purpose of this paper is to assess which non-IMF reduction techniques and reduction forceps are available for fracture reduction in the mandible.

METHODS

A systematic search was performed in the databases of Pubmed and EMBASE. The search was updated until February 2016 and no initial date and language preference was set.

RESULTS

14 articles were selected for this review, among them ten articles related to reduction forceps and four articles describing other techniques. Thus, modification and design of reduction forceps and other reduction techniques are qualitatively described.

CONCLUSION

Few designs of repositioning forceps have been proposed in the literature. Quick and adequate reduction of fractures seems possible with non-IMF techniques resulting in anatomic repositioning and shorter operation time, especially in cases with good interfragmentary stability. Further development and clinical testing of reduction forceps is necessary to establish their future role in maxillofacial fracture treatment.

Midface Fractures II

Facial fractures are a common source of emergency department consultations for the plastic surgeon. A working understanding of the evaluation, the assessment, the management, and the prevention of further injury when dealing with these fractures is vital. This second of a two-part series detailing the management of midfacial fractures serves as a guide for the appropriate workup and management of the wide variety of fracture patterns that are commonly encountered.

The use of mini plates for intermaxillary fixation in a severely comminuted mandibular fracture with bilateral condylar fractures

Intermaxillary fixation (IMF) is an integral technique utilized by maxillofacial surgeons to appropriately reduce and relate maxillary and mandibular fractures to both one another and the facial skeleton. This case report reviews the management of a comminuted mandibular fracture including inoperable bilateral condylar fractures that precluded the use of convention IMF techniques necessitating an alternative technique. This was achieved in the form of modified bony plates extending intraorally. Postoperative review showed favorable results with occlusion and range of motion comparable to the premorbid function and no unforeseen complications.

Deep head and neck infection causing pathological fracture of the mandibular condyle

We report an unusual case of a 46-year-old male with a severe deep head and neck infection after extraction of two mandibular molars that led to a potentially life-threatening condition and caused pathological fracture of the mandibular condyle. This is the first published spontaneous pathological fracture of the mandibular condyle caused by an infection spread from a lower molar tooth. Based on CT scan we discuss the pathways of infection of odontogenic origin and the reflections of treatment. This case report illustrates an unusual presentation of a spontaneous pathological condylar fracture caused by a severe life-threatening infection after tooth extraction. It details the examination and management of the patient and reflections about the treatment.

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.