Is the Use of Arch Bars or Interdental Wire Fixation Necessary for Successful Outcomes in the Open Reduction and Internal Fixation of Mandibular Angle Fractures?

Infection Rates of an Intraoral Versus Extraoral Approach to Mandibular Fracture Repairs are Equal: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

PURPOSE

This study investigates whether the intraoral approach to mandibular open reduction and internal fixation, through exposure to the oral cavity's microbiome, results in higher infection rates compared to the extraoral approach, thus addressing a critical public health concern, potentially offering an opportunity to reduce health-care costs, and aiming to guide effective clinical practice.

METHODS

In this systematic review with meta-analyses, a review of the literature was conducted in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) guidelines. A comprehensive literature search was conducted using Embase and PubMed for articles published between 1989 and 2023. Inclusion criteria targeted studies on open reduction and internal fixation mandibular fractures comparing intraoral and extraoral approaches and reporting infection rates. Exclusion criteria eliminated non-English articles, case reports, and studies with insufficient approach-specific data. The primary outcome was the postoperative infection rate, with surgical approach as the predictor. Covariates such as age, sex, diabetes, and smoking status were included when reported. Data were analyzed using R software, employing random-effects models due to anticipated heterogeneity (I2 statistics).

RESULTS

From 61 studies, 11 provided direct comparisons involving 1,317 patients-937 intraoral and 380 extraoral. Infection rates were 5.9% for intraoral and 10% for extraoral approaches. Pooled relative risk was 0.94 [95% confidence interval, 0.63, 1.39], suggesting no significant risk difference. Prevalence of infections was estimated at 9% for intraoral and 6.1% for extraoral procedures, with significant heterogeneity (I2 = 84% for intraoral and 56% for extraoral).

CONCLUSION

Our meta-analysis found no significant difference in infection rates between the two approaches. There is opportunity to expand on reporting complication rates comparing the various approaches to mandibular fixation. Until these data are presented, surgeon preference may dictate the operative approach to expose the mandible for reduction and fixation.

Manual versus rigid intraoperative maxillo-mandibular fixation in the surgical management of mandibular fractures: A European prospective analysis

PURPOSE

Intraoperative stabilisation of bony fragments with maxillo-mandibular fixation (MMF) is an essential step in the surgical treatment of mandibular fractures that are treated with open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF). The MMF can be performed with or without wire-based methods, rigid or manual MMF, respectively. The aim of this study was to compare the use of manual versus rigid MMF, in terms of occlusal outcomes and infective complications.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This multi-centric prospective study involved 12 European maxillofacial centres and included adult patients (age ≥16 years) with mandibular fractures treated with ORIF. The following data were collected: age, gender, pre-trauma dental status (dentate or partially dentate), cause of injury, fracture site, associated facial fractures, surgical approach, modality of intraoperative MMF (manual or rigid), outcome (minor/major malocclusions and infective complications) and revision surgeries. The main outcome was malocclusion at 6 weeks after surgery.

RESULTS

Between May 1, 2021 and April 30, 2022, 319 patients-257 males and 62 females (median age, 28 years)-with mandibular fractures (185 single, 116 double and 18 triple fractures) were hospitalised and treated with ORIF. Intraoperative MMF was performed manually on 112 (35%) patients and with rigid MMF on 207 (65%) patients. The study variables did not differ significantly between the two groups, except for age. Minor occlusion disturbances were observed in 4 (3.6%) patients in the manual MMF group and in 10 (4.8%) patients in the rigid MMF group (p > .05). In the rigid MMF group, only one case of major malocclusion required a revision surgery. Infective complications involved 3.6% and 5.8% of patients in the manual and rigid MMF group, respectively (p > .05).

CONCLUSION

Intraoperative MMF was performed manually in nearly one third of the patients, with wide variability among the centres and no difference observed in terms of number, site and displacement of fractures. No significant difference was found in terms of postoperative malocclusion among patients treated with manual or rigid MMF. This suggests that both techniques were equally effective in providing intraoperative MMF.

Prevalence of surgical site infections after open reduction and internal fixation for mandibular fractures: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Our study aims to estimate the prevalence of surgical site infections (SSI) following open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) for mandibular fractures and to determine the effect of potential moderators on it. A systematic literature search (Medline and Scopus databases) was conducted independently by two reviewers. The pooled prevalence with 95% confidence intervals was estimated. Quality assessment as well as outlier and influential analysis were performed. Additionally, subgroup and meta-regression analysis were conducted in order the effect of categorical and continuous variables on the estimated prevalence to be investigated. In total, seventy-five eligible studies (comprising a sum of 5825 participants) were included in this meta-analysis. The overall prevalence of SSI following ORIF for mandibular fractures was estimated as high as 4.2% (95% CI 3.0-5.6%) with significant heterogeneity between studies. One study was identified to be critically influential. In the subgroup analysis, the prevalence was 4.2% (95% CI 2.2-6.6%) among studies conducted in Europe, 4.3% (95% CI 3.1-5.6%) among studies conducted in Asia and higher among those conducted in America (7.3%) (95% CI 4.7-10.3%). It is important for healthcare professionals to be aware of the etiology of these infections, despite the relatively low rate of SSI in these procedures. However, further, well-designed prospective and retrospective studies need to be conducted in order this issue to be fully clarified.

European multicenter prospective analysis of the use of maxillomandibular fixation for mandibular fractures treated with open reduction and internal fixation

INTRODUCTION

The goal of mandibular fracture treatment is to restore static and dynamic occlusal functions. Open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) of these fractures can be associated with an intraoperative and/or postoperative maxillo-mandibular fixation (MMF). The aim of this study was to analyse the use of perioperative MMF and its effects on occlusal outcomes in the management of mandibular fractures.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

This multicentric prospective study included adult patients with mandibular fractures treated with ORIF. The following data were collected: age, gender, pre-trauma dental status (dentate, partially dentate), cause of injury, fracture site, associated facial fractures, surgical approach, type of ORIF (rigid, non-rigid or mixed), thickness and number of plates, modality of intraoperative MMF (arch bars, self-tapping and self-drilling screws [STSDSs], manual, other) and duration of postoperative MMF. The primary outcome was malocclusion at 6 weeks and 3 months. Statistical analyses were performed with Fisher's exact test or chi-square test, as appropriate.

RESULTS

Between 1 May 2021 and 30 April 2022, 336 patients, 264 males and 72 females (median age, 28 years) with mandibular fractures (194 single, 124 double and 18 triple fractures) were hospitalized. Intraoperative MMF was performed in all patients. Osteosynthesis was rigid in 75% of single fractures, and rigid or mixed in 85% and 100% of double and triple fractures, respectively. Excluding patients who underwent manual reduction, postoperative MMF (median duration, 3 weeks) was performed in 140 (64%) patients, without differences by type or number of fractures (p > 0.05). No significant difference was found in the incidence of malocclusion in patients with postoperative MMF (5%, 95% confidence interval [CI], 2-10%) compared to those without (4%; 95% IC, 1-11%) (p > 0.05).

CONCLUSION

Postoperative MMF was performed in more than half of the patients despite adequate fracture osteosynthesis, with wide variability amongst centers. No evidence of a reduction in the incidence of postoperative malocclusion in patients treated with postoperative MMF was found.

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.

Is manual reduction adequate for intraoperative control of occlusion during fixation of mandibular fractures? A systematic review and meta-analysis

The aim of this systematic review was to find out if manual intraoperative control of occlusion is adequate for the reduction of mandibular fractures in comparison with intermaxillary fixation (IMF). We searched PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Library and Clinical Trials Registry, and the references of included trials. Our primary outcomes of interest were the reduction of fracture anatomically and radiographically, occlusal disturbances, and the incidence of revision procedures due to poor occlusion or reduction. Our secondary outcomes of interest were operating time and infective complications. Of the 257 studies retrieved (manual reduction = 136, IMF = 121), four were included. The studies had an unclear risk of bias. Nevertheless, the overall effect was statistically significant and in favour of manual reduction, with a lower number of adverse events in the manual reduction group (n = 43) than in the IMF group (n = 78), odds ratio 0.42 (95% CI 0.27 to 0.64). An absolute reduction in adverse events was seen in occlusion disturbances (120 fewer/1000), revision procedures (164 fewer/1000), and infective complications (178 fewer/1000). The evidence to support manual reduction over IMF for the intraoperative control of fracture fragments and occlusion was derived from few studies with an unclear risk of bias, and the quality was low. The results were not different when condylar fractures were present. The overall certainty of evidence was moderate. Clinicians should select the appropriate technique based on the injury pattern, and the treating surgeon's experience and available resources.

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.

Accuracy and outcome of mandibular fracture reduction without and with an aid of a repositioning forceps

Purpose

It is presumed that adequate reduction of a fracture of the mandible favors bone healing and diminishes the risk of complications. In this retrospective study, we compared the accuracy of fracture alignment and complication rate of mandibular fractures reduced without or with aid of a repositioning forceps.

Methods

Retrospective analysis of consecutive 252 patients with mandibular fractures treated between January 2010 and December 2016. Eligible for this study were patients with isolated mandibular fractures needing open reduction and internal fixation in whom pre- and postoperative radiographs and patient records were available. In total, 131 (252 fractures) patients fulfilled the inclusion criteria.

Results

Seventy-one (54%) patients were men. Mean age of the patients was 33 ± 16.5 years, and the median and interquartile range of age was 25 (20;41). In 54 patients, mandibular fractures were reduced without the aid of repositioning forceps, and in the remaining 77 patients, the fractures were reduced with the aid of the repositioning forceps. Anatomical alignment of the fractures was poor in the non-forceps-aided group (48%) compared to the forceps-aided group (58%) (P = .067). Overall complication rate was higher in the group of fractures reduced without the aid of forceps (17%) than in the forceps-aided group (7%) (P = .045; OR, 2.7; 95% CI, 1.0–7.4).

Conclusions

Mandibular fractures reduced with the aid of repositioning forceps are accompanied by a lower complication rate and better alignment. This is an important observation as better alignment of the fracture fragments favors bone healing and reduces complications.

Comparative Evaluation of the Embrasure Wire versus Arch Bar Maxillomandibular Fixation in the Management of Mandibular Fractures: Are Arch Bars Replaceable?

The aim of this prospective study was to appraise the role of embrasure wiring in the treatment of mandibular fractures over the arch bar as adjunctive techniques of maxillomandibular fixation (MMF). This study was conducted on 40 patients who were surgically treated for mandibular fractures with accessory use of MMF (embrasure: group A vs. arch bars: group B). All patients were evaluated for demographic data, etiology, and location of fracture. Characteristically, the complications, including wire injury, infection, and malocclusion, were recorded. The data were analyzed using Student's t -test and chi-square test as appropriate. Statistical significance was set at p  < 0.05). In this study, data from 40 patients were included. In group A (embrasure wiring), time required for placement of MMF was significantly less than (7.85 ± 0.81 minutes) that in group B, and also there was less incidence of wire prick to the operator in group A than in group B ( p  < 0.05). However, in terms of wire prick and malocclusion, no statistically significant difference was noted in groups A and B ( p  > 0.05). Patient treated with embrasure wiring intermaxillary fixation had better outcomes especially in terms of time of placement and less incidence of wire prick injury when compared with arch bar.

Head and Neck Reconstructive Surgery

Head and neck reconstruction following surgical extirpative management of head and neck cancer requires critical assessment and meticulous correction of both aesthetic and functional deficits to optimize the physical and psychological well-being of the patient. Unique to head and neck cancers is the potential alteration of one's senses, breathing, speech, and swallowing functions, as well as overall head and neck aesthetics. When possible, tissue defects are replaced with similar tissues, though donor sites may be anatomically local, regional, or distant. The "reconstructive ladder" provides a heuristic approach to restoring the functional and aesthetic integrity of the head and neck cancer patient. Local tissue-rearrangement, grafts, flaps, and prosthetics are all options in the armamentarium of the reconstructive surgeon. The aim of this chapter is to familiarize the reader with the aims of reconstructive surgery, techniques employed to restore form and function as well as challenges and outcomes.

The use of Synthes MatrixWAVE bone anchored arch bars for closed treatment of multiple concurrent mandibular fractures

Background

Maxillomandibular fixation (MMF) is an important tool in the treatment of facial fractures and bone-anchored arch bar systems have emerged as treatment options. This study illustrates our experience with the Synthes MatrixWAVE MMF system and the novel application in closed treatment of patients with multiple concurrent mandibular fractures.

Methods

We enrolled eight patients with concurrent mandibular fractures and treated them with the MatrixWAVE MMF system. The malleable arch bars were fitted and then secured using 6-8 mm screws. The arch bar was and either stretched or compressed to ensure optimal positioning. 24-gauge interdental fixation wiring was placed using the fish loop technique on either side of the fracture to achieve stabilization of the mandible fractures.

Results

All eight patients were retained in MMF until stable occlusion was achieved with clinical evidence of healing, approximately 4-6 weeks. Post-operative Panorex scans did not reveal any evidence of damage to tooth roots. None of the screws became overly embedded in the mucosa secondary to overgrowth; the arch bars were successfully removed in an outpatient setting without local anesthesia.

Conclusions

The Synthes MatrixWAVE MMF system has unique features such as prominent screw anchor heads and horizontal malleability unique from other bone anchored arch bars. These features allow for completely closed treatment of patients with multiple concurrent mandible fractures.

Multidetector CT of Mandibular Fractures, Reductions, and Complications: A Clinically Relevant Primer for the Radiologist

After the nasal bones, the mandible is the second most common site of facial fractures, and mandibular fractures frequently require open reduction. In the trauma injury setting, multidetector computed tomography (CT) has become the cornerstone imaging modality for determining the most appropriate treatment management, fixation method, and surgical approach. Multidetector CT is also used to assess the adequacy of the reduction and evaluate potential complications in the postoperative period. For successful restoration of the mandible's form and function, as well as management of posttraumatic and postoperative complications, reconstructive surgeons are required to have a detailed understanding of mandibular biomechanics, occlusion, and anatomy. To provide added value in the diagnosis, treatment planning, and follow-up of mandibular fractures, radiologists should be aware of these concepts. Knowledge of the techniques commonly used to achieve occlusal and anatomic reduction and of the rationale behind the range of available treatment options for different injury patterns-from isolated and nondisplaced fractures to multisite and comminuted fractures-also is essential. This article focuses on the use of multidetector CT for pre- and postoperative evaluation of mandibular fractures and outlines fundamental concepts of diagnosis and management-beginning with an explanation of common fracture patterns and their biomechanical underpinnings, and followed by a review of the common postoperative appearances of these fractures after semirigid and rigid fixation procedures. Specific considerations regarding fractures in different regions of the tooth-bearing and non-tooth-bearing mandible and the unique issues pertaining to the edentulous atrophic mandible are reviewed, and key features that distinguish major from minor complications are described. (©)RSNA, 2016.

Treatment of Mandibular Angle Fractures with Single Three-Dimensional Locking Miniplates without Maxillomandibular Fixation: How Much Fixation Is Required?

The aim of this simple nonrandomized and observational study was to evaluate the efficacy of single three-dimensional (3D) plate for the treatment of mandibular angle fractures without maxillomandibular fixation. A total of 30 patients with noncomminuted fractures of mandibular angle requiring open reduction and internal fixation were included in the study. All the patients were treated by open reduction and internal fixation using single 3D titanium locking miniplate placed with the help of transbuccal trocar or Synthes 90-degree hand piece and screw driver. 3D locking titanium miniplates used in our study was four-holed, box-shaped plate, and screws with 2 mm diameter and 8 mm length. The following clinical parameters were assessed for each patient at each follow-up visit: pain (visual analog scale: 0-5), swelling (visual analog scale: 0-5), mouth opening, infection, paresthesia, hardware failure (plate fracture), occlusal discrepancies, and mobility between fracture fragments. A significant decrease in pain level was seen during the follow-up visits. No statistically significant changes were seen in swelling, but mouth opening increased in the subsequent visits. Also better results were seen in terms of fracture stability and occlusion in the postoperative period. Two cases of infection and two cases of hardware failure were noted in sixth postoperative week. 3D plating system is an easy to use alternative to conventional miniplates to treat mandibular angle fractures that uses lesser foreign material, thus reducing the operative time and overall cost of the treatment. Better fracture stability and occlusion was also achieved using the 3D plating system.

Evaluation of postoperative complications according to treatment of third molars in mandibular angle fracture

Objectives

The aim of this study was to evaluate the implication of third molars in postoperative complications of mandibular angle fracture with open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF).

Materials and Methods

Data were collected on patients who presented with mandibular angle fracture at our Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery between January 2011 and December 2015. Of the 63 total patients who underwent ORIF and perioperative intermaxillary fixation (IMF) with an arch bar, 49 patients were identified as having third molars in the fracture line and were followed up with until plate removal. The complications of postoperative infection, postoperative nerve injury, bone healing, and changes in occlusion and temporomandibular joint were evaluated and analyzed using statistical methods.

Results

In total, 49 patients had third molars in the fracture line and underwent ORIF surgery and perioperative IMF with an arch bar. The third molar in the fracture line was retained during ORIF in 39 patients. Several patients complained of nerve injury, temporomandibular disorder (TMD), change of occlusion, and postoperative infection around the retained third molar. The third molars were removed during ORIF surgery in 10 patients. Some of these patients complained of nerve injury, but no other complications, such as TMD, change in occlusion, or postoperative infection, were observed. There was no delayed union or nonunion in either of the groups. No statistically significant difference was found between the non-extraction group and the retained teeth group regarding complications after ORIF.

Conclusion

If the third molar is partially impacted or completely nonfunctional, likely to be involved in pathologic conditions later in life, or possible to remove with the plate simultaneously, extraction of the third molar in the fracture line should be considered during ORIF surgery of the mandible angle fracture.

Controversies in the Management of the Trauma Patient

Facial trauma is a significant cause of morbidity in the United States. Despite the large volume of trauma surgeries at most academic institutions, there is still controversy regarding management of many traumatic injuries. The literature lacks clear-cut best practices for most fractures. In orbital trauma, there is debate about the optimal timing of repair, preferred biomaterial to be used, and the utility of evaluation afterward with intraoperative computed tomographic scan. In repair of mandible fractures, there is debate regarding open versus closed reduction of subcondylar fractures, or alternatively, endoscopic repair.

The Use of Topical Lidocaine Gel During Intermaxillary Fixation Procedure

This study aimed to validate the usefulness of lidocaine gel during intermaxillary fixation using arch bars in patients with mandible fracture by comparing 2 patient groups: one group using lidocaine gel in intermaxillary fixation and the other group undergoing traditional local infiltration.Subjects were patients with mandible fracture undergoing intermaxillary fixation using arch bars from March 2003 to February 2007. Twenty-three patients were anesthetized in the upper and lower gingiva by 2% local lidocaine solution injection; another 23 underwent topical anesthesia with 2% lidocaine hydrochloride gel applied to the upper and lower gingiva. The convenience of fixation was measured in terms of operation time and degree of pain according to the visual analog scale; arch bar loosening rate was assessed postoperatively.The mean operation times were 63 and 47 minutes in the groups undergoing local infiltration and using topical lidocaine gel, respectively. For pain degree according to the visual analog scale, the mean scores were 6.4 and 3.2 in the groups using local infiltration and topical lidocaine gel, respectively. When the arch bar loosening rate was measured postoperatively, the 2 groups differed significantly, with a rate of 26% in the group using local infiltration and 13% in the group using topical lidocaine gel.Application of topical lidocaine gel during intermaxillary fixation using arch bars in patients with mandible fracture relieves pain and offers convenience in performing the procedure. It can be a useful alternative method for patients who are sensitive to pain or have needle phobia.

A comparison of three treatment methods for fractures of the mandibular angle

The purpose of this study was to determine a practical and cost-effective treatment method for fixing mandibular angle fractures using miniplates. Patients were divided into three groups for comparison, based on the intraoperative plates and maxillomandibular fixation (MMF) used: group A, single miniplate fixation with MMF (n=37); group B, double miniplate fixation with MMF (n=59); group C, double miniplate fixation without MMF (n=38). Details of the characteristics of the fractures and the treatments and outcomes were collected retrospectively and analyzed statistically. This study was based on 134 cases of isolated mandibular angle fracture. Of the surgically treated patients, 78.4% (n=105) were completely free of complications. A detailed complication correlation matrix is given in the text. Besides screw loosening and malocclusion, no statistically significant difference was observed between the groups. The results of this study suggest that treatment with single miniplate fixation and MMF has a low incidence rate of complications, and this method of treatment is considered to be simple.

Reporting of Postoperative Pain Management Protocols in Randomized Clinical Trials of Mandibular Fracture Repair: A Systematic Review

IMPORTANCE

The control of pain associated with mandibular fractures is an important treatment outcome that affects function, adherence to treatment regimens, and patient comfort and satisfaction.

OBJECTIVE

To explore the pain management protocols reported in studies of mandibular fractures, including the reporting of quality-of-life measures.

EVIDENCE REVIEW

PubMed/MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane CENTRAL, and clinicaltrials.gov were searched for randomized clinical trials published from 1970 to July 2014. We followed PRISMA reporting standards to assess study eligibility and extract data. Studies of patients older than 16 years who underwent operative mandibular fracture management were included. The primary data collected included the type of analgesic prescribed, associated adverse effects of the analgesic, method of pain assessment, and use of quality-of-life measures. A pain attentiveness score was assigned to studies based on the comprehensiveness of the information reported. Several variables were reviewed to determine the factors that predict reporting of pain-related data. Assessments of risk for bias were performed using the Cochrane Collaboration's domain-based evaluation method.

FINDINGS

The initial search identified 111 articles, of which 38 met inclusion criteria. Among the 38 reviewed articles, there were 38 trials and 1808 unique patients represented. Among the 38 articles, the procedures reported included maxillomandibular fixation only in 6 (16%), open reduction with internal fixation only in 20 (53%), and both in 12 (32%). Specific analgesics prescribed were reported in only 5 of the 38 studies (13%), and 3 of these used a combination of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and acetaminophen (paracetamol). Thirteen studies (34%) reported pain assessments and 5 (13%) included quality-of-life measures. Geographic region was the only variable that predicted pain attentiveness, with studies from Europe (3 of 11 studies [27%]) and Asia (6 of 16 studies [38%]) most likely to have a high pain attentiveness score. A low rating was least common in the United States (2 of 5 studies [40%]) (P = .047, Fisher exact test). Most of the studies had unclear (n = 27) or high (n = 6) risks for bias in the key domains assessed.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

Pain management is a neglected outcome in randomized clinical trials of mandibular trauma; most studies did not describe the specific analgesics used. Many randomized clinical trials (13 [34%]) assessed pain levels among patients without providing information about the agents prescribed. The incorporation of validated pain measures and quality-of-life scores in future studies of mandibular trauma would focus attention on this key outcome measure.

Decade review of mandible fractures and arch bar impact on outcomes of nonsubcondylar fractures

OBJECTIVES/HYPOTHESIS

Review trends in mandible fracture management and outcomes in patients treated with and without intraoperative arch bar use.

STUDY DESIGN

Retrospective chart review.

METHODS

All patients with mandible fractures between October 1, 2001, and October 1, 2011, were reviewed. Excluded were those with concomitant midfacial fractures or inadequate follow-up.

RESULTS

Overall, 734 patients sustained 1,312 mandible fractures. Assault was the most common etiology. The parasymphyseal, subcondylar, and angle regions were most likely fractured. In total, 85% of patients underwent open-reduction internal-fixation (ORIF). This overall number had no significant annual deviation. However, use of arch bars to achieve intraoperative maxillomandibular fixation (MMF) with ORIF decreased annually, whereas the use of manual reduction with ORIF increased annually. These trends held statistical significance. Outcomes were reviewed in patients with one or two nonsubcondylar fractures by assessing complications of malocclusion, infection, and malunion. In 228 patients meeting criteria, the incidence of complications was 12.9% in those treated using intraoperative arch bars with ORIF and 12.5% in those using manual reduction with ORIF. When assessing individual complications, there was no statistically significant difference.

CONCLUSION

Our data suggest a shifting trend in mandible fracture management. Our techniques for achieving fracture reduction ideal for ORIF favors manual reduction over the use of arch bars in select cases. We found no statistical increase in the incidence of complications when using manual reduction with ORIF in patients with one and two nonsubcondylar fractures. In appropriately selected cases, manual stabilization of fractured segments is an alternative to using arch bars to achieve intraoperative MMF.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

4. Laryngoscope, 126:596-601, 2016.

The Comprehensive AOCMF Classification System: Mandible Fractures- Level 2 Tutorial

This tutorial outlines the details of the AOCMF image-based classification system for fractures of the mandible at the precision level 2 allowing description of their topographical distribution. A short introduction about the anatomy is made. Mandibular fractures are classified by the anatomic regions involved. For this purpose, the mandible is delineated into an array of nine regions identified by letters: the symphysis/parasymphysis region anteriorly, two body regions on each lateral side, combined angle and ascending ramus regions, and finally the condylar and coronoid processes. A precise definition of the demarcation lines between these regions is given for the unambiguous allocation of fractures. Four transition zones allow an accurate topographic assignment if fractures end up in or run across the borders of anatomic regions. These zones are defined between angle/ramus and body, and between body and symphysis/parasymphysis. A fracture is classified as "confined" as long as it is located within a region, in contrast to a fracture being "nonconfined" when it extents to an adjoining region. Illustrations and case examples of mandible fractures are presented to become familiar with the classification procedure in daily routine.

Microplate Fixation without Maxillomandibular Fixation in Double Mandibular Fractures

Background

Maxillomandibular fixation (MMF) is usually used to treat double mandibular fractures. However, advancements in reduction and fixation techniques may allow recovery of the premorbid dental arch and occlusion without the use of MMF. We investigated whether anatomical reduction and microplate fixation without MMF could provide secure immobilization and correct occlusion in double mandibular fractures.

Methods

Thirty-four patients with double mandibular fractures were treated with open reduction and internal fixation without MMF. Both fracture sites were surgically treated. For bony fixations, we used microplates with or without wire. After reduction, each fracture site was fixed at two or three points to maintain anatomical alignment of the mandible. Interdental wiring was used to reduce the fracture at the superior border and to enhance stability for 6 weeks. Mouth opening was permitted immediately.

Results

No major complications were observed, including infection, plate exposure, non-union, or significant malocclusion. Five patients experienced minor complications, among whom the only one patient experienced a persistant but mild malocclusion with no need for additional management.

Conclusion

This study showed that double mandibular fractures correction with two- or three-point fixation without MMF simplified the surgical procedure, increased patient comfort, and reduced complications, due to good stability and excellent adaptation.

Fixation of mandibular angle fractures: clinical studies

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study was to review the literature regarding the evolution of current thoughts on fixation of mandibular angle fractures (MAFs).

METHODS

An electronic search in PubMed was undertaken in August 2012. The titles and abstracts from these results were read to identify studies within the selection criteria. Eligibility criteria included studies from the last 30 years (from 1983 onwards) reporting clinical studies of MAFs.

RESULTS

The search strategy initially identified 767 studies. The references from 1983 onwards totaled 727 articles. Fifty-four studies were identified without repetition within the selection criteria. Two articles showing significance in the development of treatment techniques were included. Additional hand-searching yielded 13 additional papers. Thus, a total of 69 studies were included.

CONCLUSIONS

Prospective randomized controlled studies of MAFs repair techniques are scarce. The available data at best predict that complications are associated with all kinds of fixation techniques. The similar results of complications in studies using different methods of fixation indicate that biomechanics are only one factor to be considered when treating MAFs. A second fracture in the mandible (which was observed in the majority of the studies' population) can confound the outcome data because the fixation requirements of a double fracture are often different from those for an isolated fracture. It can be necessary additional effort intended for increase of stability when using biodegradable plate system to fixate MAFs. The use of 1.3 mm malleable miniplates was associated with an unacceptable incidence of plate fracture, suggesting that this is not the most adequate system to treat MAFs. The use of the 3D grid plates has shown good clinical results. The efficiency of locking miniplate system is yet to be proven because there are few clinical studies with its use to fixate MAFs, although they have shown good results. When considering the use of semirigid or rigid fixation systems, the use of two miniplates outweigh the advantages of the use of one reconstruction plate, although the use of miniplates is not recommended for displaced comminuted MAFs. Although it has been shown that absolute rigid fixation is not necessary for fracture healing, any system that provides superior stability without impacting negatively on other aspects of the procedure, i.e., time, exposure, and cost, should be favored. MAFs can be treated in a highly effective way and with a relatively low rate of complications with monocortical miniplate fixation. The large number of studies on the treatment of MAF reflects the fact that a consensus has not been reached for a single, ideal treatment method.

Treatment outcomes with the use of maxillomandibular fixation screws in the management of mandible fractures

PURPOSE

The purpose of this prospective randomized study was to assess whether uncomplicated mandible fractures could be treated successfully in an open or closed fashion using maxillomandibular fixation (MMF) screws.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This was a prospective institutional review board-approved study involving 20 adult patients who presented to the university emergency department or oral and maxillofacial surgical clinic with uncomplicated mandible fractures. Patients who met the exclusion criteria consented to enter the study in the open reduction internal fixation (ORIF) or the closed (MMF) study group. Six to 8 MMF screws were used to obtain intermaxillary fixation (IMF) in the 2 groups. Screw failure was documented. All screws were removed at 5 to 6 weeks postoperatively. Insertional torque (IT) was measured at time of screw placement to assess primary stability. Clinical and photographic documentation was performed to assess fracture healing, occlusion, and gingival health. Ten-centimeter visual analog scales were used to assess patient-centered outcomes. Cone-beam computed tomography was performed to assess the long-term effects on the periodontium and roots. A cost comparison was performed to determine whether the use of screws was cost effective compared with arch bars.

RESULTS

Fifteen men and 5 women (mean age, 25.2 yr) entered the study. All patients displayed adequate fracture healing based on clinical examination. All patients had acceptable occlusion at 5 to 6 weeks postoperatively. Total screw failure was 27 of 106 screws (25.5%). Forty percent of screws placed in the MMF group failed compared with only 6% in the ORIF group. Gingival health scores were favorable. Factors that had a significant effect on screw failure included a lower IT (P = .002), use in closed (MMF) treatment (P < .001), and use in the posterior jaw (P = .012). Minimal pain was associated with the MMF screws and pre-existing occlusion was re-established based on patients' subjective responses. The MMF group reported a statistically significant lower quality of life (P < .001) compared with the ORIF group. There was only 1 screw site that had a facial cortical bone defect noted at 6-month follow-up CBCT examination. There were no discernible long-term root defects. Cost analysis showed that the use of MMF screws saved around $600 per patient in operating room usage cost alone compared with the estimated use of arch bars.

CONCLUSIONS

Uncomplicated mandible fractures were successfully treated using MMF screws in open and closed treatments. However, the utility in closed treatment was decreased because of significant screw failure and patient noncompliance. The screws were well tolerated by the patients. There was minimal long-term damage to the periodontium and dental roots. The cost of screws was more than offset by time savings.

Interventions for the management of mandibular fractures

BACKGROUND

Fractures of the mandible (lower jaw) are a common occurrence and usually related to interpersonal violence or road traffic accidents. Mandibular fractures may be treated using open (surgical) and closed (non-surgical) techniques. Fracture sites are immobilized with intermaxillary fixation (IMF) or other external or internal devices (i.e. plates and screws) to allow bone healing. Various techniques have been used, however uncertainty exists with respect to the specific indications for each approach.

OBJECTIVES

The objective of this review is to provide reliable evidence of the effects of any interventions either open (surgical) or closed (non-surgical) that can be used in the management of mandibular fractures, excluding the condyles, in adult patients.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the following electronic databases: the Cochrane Oral Health Group's Trials Register (to 28 February 2013), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2013, Issue 1), MEDLINE via OVID (1950 to 28 February 2013), EMBASE via OVID (1980 to 28 February 2013), metaRegister of Controlled Trials (to 7 April 2013), ClinicalTrials.gov (to 7 April 2013) and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (to 7 April 2013). The reference lists of all trials identified were checked for further studies. There were no restrictions regarding language or date of publication.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials evaluating the management of mandibular fractures without condylar involvement. Any studies that compared different treatment approaches were included.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

At least two review authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted data. Results were to be expressed as random-effects models using mean differences for continuous outcomes and risk ratios for dichotomous outcomes with 95% confidence intervals. Heterogeneity was to be investigated to include both clinical and methodological factors.

MAIN RESULTS

Twelve studies, assessed as high (six) and unclear (six) risk of bias, comprising 689 participants (830 fractures), were included. Interventions examined different plate materials and morphology; use of one or two lag screws; microplate versus miniplate; early and delayed mobilization; eyelet wires versus Rapid IMF™ and the management of angle fractures with intraoral access alone or combined with a transbuccal approach. Patient-oriented outcomes were largely ignored and post-operative pain scores were inadequately reported. Unfortunately, only one or two trials with small sample sizes were conducted for each comparison and outcome. Our results and conclusions should therefore be interpreted with caution. We were able to pool the results for two comparisons assessing one outcome. Pooled data from two studies comparing two miniplates versus one miniplate revealed no significant difference in the risk of post-operative infection of surgical site (risk ratio (RR) 1.32, 95% CI 0.41 to 4.22, P = 0.64, I(2) = 0%). Similarly, no difference in post-operative infection between the use of two 3-dimensional (3D) and standard (2D) miniplates was determined (RR 1.26, 95% CI 0.19 to 8.13, P = 0.81, I(2) = 27%). The included studies involved a small number of participants with a low number of events.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

This review illustrates that there is currently inadequate evidence to support the effectiveness of a single approach in the management of mandibular fractures without condylar involvement. The lack of high quality evidence may be explained by clinical diversity, variability in assessment tools used and difficulty in grading outcomes with existing measurement tools. Until high level evidence is available, treatment decisions should continue to be based on the clinician's prior experience and the individual circumstances.

A novel technique for attaining maxillomandibular fixation in the edentulous mandible fracture

Edentulous mandible fractures present a unique and challenging surgical problem, particularly because of lack of occlusive dental surfaces to capitalize upon maxillomandibular fixation (MMF). We present a novel technique to achieve MMF using rigid plates spanning the oral cavity to fixate the maxilla to the mandible. The process is rapid and allows stability using the established principles of rigidity, external fixation, and osteosynthesis. This technique allows for a faster MMF than with a Gunning splint and allows for easier oral hygiene. An illustrative case and pre- and postoperative imaging are provided.

Manual reduction of mandibular fractures before internal fixation leads to shorter operative duration and equivalent outcomes when compared with reduction with intermaxillary fixation

PURPOSE

Open reduction of mandibular fractures before internal fixation is most commonly performed by 1 of 2 methods: intermaxillary fixation (IMF) or manual reduction. There are risks to both patient and clinician associated with using IMF. Furthermore, previous retrospective studies have failed to show any advantage in its use. The purpose of this study was to directly compare the use of manual reduction (experimental group) and IMF (control group) in open reduction-internal fixation of mandibular fractures.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Patients who presented with isolated mandibular fractures at 2 hospitals in Queensland, Australia, from May 2009 to June 2010 were enrolled in a prospective controlled trial comparing IMF and manual reduction. The outcome measures were operative duration (primary outcome), as well as radiographic outcome, occlusal outcome, and complications (secondary outcomes). The patient and assessor were blinded to the type of reduction used before fixation. The study hypothesis is that manual reduction allows internal fixation in a shorter time than IMF with an equivalent outcome.

RESULTS

We recruited 50 patients, 26 allocated to IMF and 24 allocated to manual reduction before internal fixation of mandibular fractures. IMF was associated with an increased duration of procedure (P < .001) and increased complication rate (P = .063), without any observable benefit with regard to either radiographic outcome or occlusal outcome.

CONCLUSIONS

IMF is not required in open reduction-internal fixation of mandibular fractures that met our inclusion criteria. IMF is associated with increased costs to the health service and risks to both the patient and clinician.

The Use of MMF Screws: Surgical Technique, Indications, Contraindications, and Common Problems in Review of the Literature

Mandibulo-maxillary fixation (MMF) screws are inserted into the bony base of both jaws in the process of fracture realignment and immobilisation. The screw heads act as anchor points to fasten wire loops or rubber bands connecting the mandible to the maxilla. Traditional interdental chain-linked wiring or arch bar techniques provide the anchorage by attached cleats, hooks, or eyelets. In comparison to these tooth-borne appliances MMF screws facilitate and shorten the way to achieve intermaxillary fixation considerably. In addition, MMF screws help to reduce the hazards of glove perforation and wire stick injuries. On the downside, MMF screws are attributed with the risk of tooth root damage and a lack of versatility beyond the pure maintenance of occlusion such as stabilizing loose teeth or splinting fragments of the alveolar process. The surgical technique of MMF screws as well as the pros and cons of the clinical application are reviewed. The adequate screw placement to prevent serious tooth root injuries is still an issue to rethink and modify conceptual guidelines.

[Maxillary and mandibular fractures. Treatment concepts in maxillofacial surgery]

Maxillary and mandibular fractures are a relatively frequent occurrence due to the exposed location of the jaws and are caused mainly by acts of violence, traffic and recreational accidents. Mandibular fractures can be treated conservatively with dental splints and intermaxillary fixation. Since Michelet, miniplate osteosynthesis via intraoral access has become the method of choice. Champy showed that the monocortical fixation of miniplates at the level of the linea obliqua results in stable osteosynthesis, despite postoperative micro-movements in the fracture gap, and postulated the principle of dynamic compression. Dislocated fractures of the mandibular collum are treated with stable osteosynthesis via an intra- or extraoral approach, while fractures of the mandibular joint are usually treated conservatively and early functional rehabilitation is favored. For mandibular fractures, the principle of load-bearing and load-sharing should be considered, i.e. in the case of sufficient bone and uncomplicated fractures, the bone can bear most of the force, such that miniplates are sufficient (load-sharing). If bones are weakened by atrophy or in the case of infected, comminuted or defect fractures osteosynthesis plates must bear the load alone (load-bearing).

Effect of in vitro aging on the stiffness of bioabsorbable fixation plates

The purpose of this study was to investigate the effect of in vitro aging on the stiffness of bioabsorbable fixation plates. Twenty-four polylactic/polyglycolic acid plates (LactoSorb; Lorenz, Jacksonville, FL) were divided in 3 groups of 8 specimens each. Group A served as control, and groups B and C were immersed in 0.1 M lactic acid for 15 and 30 days, respectively. All specimens were subjected to a 3-point bending test, using a universal testing machine, and the stiffness of each specimen was estimated. When analyzed with one-way analysis of variance, no difference was observed for the control and in vitro-aged specimens with regard to stiffness. Long-term (30 d) in vitro aging of poly-L-lactic acid bioabsorbable fixation plates does not seem to significantly affect the stiffness of the material as derived from a 3-point bending test.

Embrasure wires for intraoperative maxillomandibular fixation are rapid and effective

PURPOSE

The management of some mandible fractures requires maxillomandibular fixation (MMF) intraoperatively but not postoperatively. Intraoperative MMF with arch bars has significant disadvantages, including duration of application and risk of disease transmission. Some surgeons have sought to minimize these disadvantages, improve efficiency, and decrease cost by omitting formal MMF altogether and manually stabilizing the occlusion. Embrasure wires are a method of intraoperative MMF with significant potential advantages. The purpose of this investigation was to compare embrasure wires with Erich arch bars (Karl Leibinger Co, Mulheim, Germany) for intraoperative stabilization of mandible fractures.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

This retrospective case review comprised 50 patients with a primary diagnosis of mandible fracture requiring open reduction-internal fixation with intraoperative MMF. Patients were categorized into 2 groups: intraoperative MMF using embrasure wires (group A) or intraoperative MMF using arch bars (group B). In each group the time required to place the MMF was recorded in whole minutes. The success or failure of the technique to maintain stable MMF throughout the procedure was assessed.

RESULTS

Intraoperative MMF was used with embrasure wires in 27 of 50 patients (54%) and with arch bars in 23 of 50 (46%). The mean time required for placement of embrasure wire MMF (2.51 minutes) was significantly (P < .001) less than the mean time required for placement of arch bar MMF (25.47 minutes). The quality of MMF was judged to be stable for the duration of fixation in 24 of 27 patients (89%) in the embrasure wire MMF group and 22 of the 23 patients (96%) in the arch bar group. This difference was not significant (P = .61).

CONCLUSION

Embrasure wires can be placed in significantly less time than arch bars, and they provide a reliable form of intraoperative MMF during mandible fracture repair. For intraoperative MMF, embrasure wires offer significant advantages compared with arch bars by reducing application time. In addition, embrasure wires may reduce the risk of disease transmission by decreasing the number of wires required for MMF.