Literature DB >> 23179956

Fixation of mandibular angle fractures: clinical studies.

Bruno Ramos Chrcanovic1.   

Abstract

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.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2012        PMID: 23179956     DOI: 10.1007/s10006-012-0374-1

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Oral Maxillofac Surg        ISSN: 1865-1550


  93 in total

1.  Treatment of mandibular angle fractures using two mini dynamic compression plates.

Authors:  E Ellis; N Karas
Journal:  J Oral Maxillofac Surg       Date:  1992-09       Impact factor: 1.895

2.  Comparison of stability of titanium and absorbable plate and screw fixation for mandibular angle fractures.

Authors:  Alparslan Esen; Hanife Ataoğlu; Lokman Gemi
Journal:  Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod       Date:  2008-08-20

3.  Transoral 2.0-mm locking miniplate fixation of mandibular fractures plus 1 week of maxillomandibular fixation: a prospective study.

Authors:  Ayman Chritah; Stewart K Lazow; Julius R Berger
Journal:  J Oral Maxillofac Surg       Date:  2005-12       Impact factor: 1.895

4.  Comparison of miniplate versus lag-screw osteosynthesis for fractures of the mandibular angle.

Authors:  Heidrun Schaaf; Steffen Kaubruegge; Philipp Streckbein; Jan-Falco Wilbrand; Heiko Kerkmann; Hans-Peter Howaldt
Journal:  Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod       Date:  2010-07-02

5.  Complications of nonrigid fixation of mandibular angle fractures.

Authors:  L A Passeri; E Ellis; D P Sinn
Journal:  J Oral Maxillofac Surg       Date:  1993-04       Impact factor: 1.895

6.  Complication rates in the operative treatment of mandibular angle fractures: a 10-year retrospective.

Authors:  Rudolf Seemann; Kurt Schicho; Arno Wutzl; Gregor Koinig; Wolfgang P Poeschl; Gerald Krennmair; Rolf Ewers; Clemens Klug
Journal:  J Oral Maxillofac Surg       Date:  2010-03       Impact factor: 1.895

Review 7.  Open versus closed reduction: comminuted mandibular fractures.

Authors:  Bruno Ramos Chrcanovic
Journal:  Oral Maxillofac Surg       Date:  2012-07-29

Review 8.  Considerations of mandibular angle fractures during and after surgery for removal of third molars: a review of the literature.

Authors:  Bruno Ramos Chrcanovic; Antônio Luís Neto Custódio
Journal:  Oral Maxillofac Surg       Date:  2010-06

9.  [Load resistance of mandibular angle fracturs treated with a miniplate osteosynthesis].

Authors:  K L Gerlach; A Schwarz
Journal:  Mund Kiefer Gesichtschir       Date:  2003-07-03

10.  Single miniplate osteosynthesis in angle fracture.

Authors:  R K Singh; U S Pal; Amiya Agrawal; Geeta Singh
Journal:  Natl J Maxillofac Surg       Date:  2011-01
View more
  3 in total

1.  Comparison of a 2.0-mm locking system with conventional 2.0- and 2.4-mm systems in the treatment of mandibular fractures: a randomized controlled trial.

Authors:  Rubens Camino Junior; Rogério Bonfante Moraes; Constantin Landes; João Gualberto C Luz
Journal:  Oral Maxillofac Surg       Date:  2017-06-12

2.  The 3-dimensional miniplate is more effective than the standard miniplate for the management of mandibular fractures: a meta-analysis.

Authors:  Yong Liu; Bo Wei; Yuxiang Li; Dawei Gu; Guochao Yin; Bo Wang; Dehui Xu; Xuebing Zhang; Daliang Kong
Journal:  Eur J Med Res       Date:  2017-02-14       Impact factor: 2.175

3.  Bone quality analysis of jaw bones in individuals with type 2 diabetes mellitus-post mortem anatomical and microstructural evaluation.

Authors:  Teodora Rodic; Eva Maria Wölfel; Petar Milovanovic; Imke A K Fiedler; Danica Cvetkovic; Katharina Jähn; Michael Amling; Jelena Sopta; Slobodan Nikolic; Vladimir Zivkovic; Björn Busse; Marija Djuric
Journal:  Clin Oral Investig       Date:  2021-03-11       Impact factor: 3.573

  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.