Literature DB >> 23348277

Hardware removal rates for mandibular angle fractures: comparing the 8-hole strut and champy plates.

Evan Moore1, Sinehan Bayrak, Marcus Moody, J Michael Key, Emre Vural.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To compare the removal rates of 8-hole angle strut plate and Champy line plate in repairing mandibular angle fractures.
METHODS: Retrospective chart review at a tertiary care academic center of adults who were at least 18 years old with at least 1 mandibular angle fracture of a traumatic origin who underwent open reduction and internal fixation by using single monocortical miniplate fixation in Champy line or by using 8-hole angle strut plate via transbuccal approach. The outcome measures were hardware removal rates and the reason for removal of the hardware.
RESULTS: One hundred four patients with a total of 106 angle fractures met the inclusion criteria for this study. Seventy-three angle fractures were treated with the 8-hole strut, and 33 angle fractures were treated with the Champy line plates. There were 6 plates removed in both groups. This resulted in 8.2% of plates removed in the 8-hole strut plate group and 18.2% in the Champy line group (P = 0.133). Loose hardware was determined to be the cause of plate removal in 2 (2.7%) of the 8-hole strut plate group compared with all 6 (18.2%) of the Champy group (P = 0.005).
CONCLUSIONS: Overall, removal rates between Champy line and 8-hole strut plates are not different in treating mandibular angle fractures, although the 8-hole strut plate has a lower rate of loose hardware-related plate removal compared with the Champy line plate.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2013        PMID: 23348277     DOI: 10.1097/SCS.0b013e31826468f5

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Craniofac Surg        ISSN: 1049-2275            Impact factor:   1.046


  7 in total

1.  Management of Mandibular Angle Fractures: Single Stainless Steel Linear Miniplate Versus Rectangular Grid Plate-A Prospective Randomised Study.

Authors:  Sridhar Reddy Kanubaddy; Sathya Kumar Devireddy; Kishore Kumar Rayadurgam; Rajsekhar Gali; Mallikarjun Rao Dasari; Sivaganesh Pampana
Journal:  J Maxillofac Oral Surg       Date:  2016-03-31

2.  Management of mandibular angle fractures using a 1.7 mm 3-dimensional strut plate.

Authors:  Varnika Pandey; Ongkila Bhutia; Shakil Ahmed Nagori; Ashu Seith; Ajoy Roychoudhury
Journal:  J Oral Biol Craniofac Res       Date:  2015-11-27

3.  3-D Miniplates Versus Conventional Miniplates in Treatment of Mandible Fractures.

Authors:  Niranjan Mishra; Nirav Thakkar; Indubhusan Kar; Shadab Ali Baig; Gaurav Sharma; Rosalin Kar; Gyana Ranjan Sahu; Krishna Gopal Birmiwal
Journal:  J Maxillofac Oral Surg       Date:  2017-12-14

4.  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

5.  Three-dimensional versus standard miniplate, lag screws versus miniplates, locking plate versus non-locking miniplates: Management of mandibular fractures, a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Patiguli Wusiman; Dilidaer Taxifulati; Li Weidong; Adili Moming
Journal:  J Dent Sci       Date:  2019-01-14       Impact factor: 2.080

6.  Routine removal of the plate after surgical treatment for mandibular angle fracture with a third molar in relation to the fracture line.

Authors:  Kazuhiko Yamamoto; Yumiko Matsusue; Satoshi Horita; Kazuhiro Murakami; Tsutomu Sugiura; Tadaaki Kirita
Journal:  Ann Maxillofac Surg       Date:  2015 Jan-Jun

7.  Treatment of Mandible Fractures Using a Miniplate System: A Retrospective Analysis.

Authors:  Lauren Bohner; Fabian Beiglboeck; Stephanie Schwipper; Rômulo Maciel Lustosa; Carla Pieirna Marino Segura; Johannes Kleinheinz; Susanne Jung
Journal:  J Clin Med       Date:  2020-09-10       Impact factor: 4.241

  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.