Literature DB >> 24436758

A Prospective Study of Strut versus Miniplate for Fractures of Mandibular Angle.

Amy S Xue1, John C Koshy1, Erik M Wolfswinkel1, William M Weathers1, Kristina P Marsack1, Larry H Hollier1.   

Abstract

This prospective randomized clinical trial compared the treatment outcomes of strut plate and Champy miniplate in fixation of mandibular angle fractures. Patients with mandibular angle fracture were consented and enrolled into this study. Exclusion criteria include patients with severely comminuted fractures. The patients were randomly assigned to receive the strut plate or Champy miniplate for angle fracture fixation. Patient demographics, fracture characteristics, operative and postoperative outcomes were collected prospectively. Statistical analysis was performed to evaluate the significance of the outcome. A total of 18 patients were included in this study and randomly assigned to receive either the strut plate or Champy miniplate. Out of which five patients were excluded postoperatively due to complex fracture resulting in postoperative maxillomandibular fixation. The final enrollment was 13 patients, N = 6 (strut) and N = 7 (Champy). There was no statistically significant difference in the pretreatment variables. Nine of these patients had other associated facial fractures, including parasymphyseal and subcondylar fractures. Most of the (11) patients had sufficient follow-up after surgery. Both groups exhibited successful clinical unions of the mandibular angle fractures. The complications associated with the mandibular angle were 20% in the strut plate group and 16.7% in the Champy group. One patient in the strut plate group had a parasymphyseal infection, requiring hardware removal. The strut plate demonstrated comparable surgical outcome as the Champy miniplate. It is a safe and effective alternative for management of mandibular angle fracture.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Champy technique; Strut plate fixation; mandibular angle fracture; miniplate fixation

Year:  2013        PMID: 24436758      PMCID: PMC3773028          DOI: 10.1055/s-0033-1349213

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Craniomaxillofac Trauma Reconstr        ISSN: 1943-3875


  24 in total

1.  Treatment modalities for mandibular angle fractures.

Authors:  Andrew J L Gear; Elena Apasova; John P Schmitz; Warren Schubert
Journal:  J Oral Maxillofac Surg       Date:  2005-05       Impact factor: 1.895

2.  5196 mandible fractures among 4381 active duty army soldiers, 1980 to 1998.

Authors:  J R Boole; M Holtel; P Amoroso; M Yore
Journal:  Laryngoscope       Date:  2001-10       Impact factor: 3.325

3.  Cross-sectional area of the mandible.

Authors:  W Schubert; B J Kobienia; R A Pollock
Journal:  J Oral Maxillofac Surg       Date:  1997-07       Impact factor: 1.895

4.  An epidemiologic survey of facial fractures and concomitant injuries.

Authors:  R H Haug; J Prather; A T Indresano
Journal:  J Oral Maxillofac Surg       Date:  1990-09       Impact factor: 1.895

5.  One- or two-plate fixation of mandibular angle fractures?

Authors:  H P Schierle; R Schmelzeisen; B Rahn; C Pytlik
Journal:  J Craniomaxillofac Surg       Date:  1997-06       Impact factor: 2.078

Review 6.  Treatment methods for fractures of the mandibular angle.

Authors:  E Ellis
Journal:  Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg       Date:  1999-08       Impact factor: 2.789

7.  Outcomes of patients with teeth in the line of mandibular angle fractures treated with stable internal fixation.

Authors:  Edward Ellis
Journal:  J Oral Maxillofac Surg       Date:  2002-08       Impact factor: 1.895

Review 8.  Biomechanics of the facial skeleton.

Authors:  R H Rudderman; R L Mullen
Journal:  Clin Plast Surg       Date:  1992-01       Impact factor: 2.017

Review 9.  Management of fractures through the angle of the mandible.

Authors:  Edward Ellis
Journal:  Oral Maxillofac Surg Clin North Am       Date:  2009-05       Impact factor: 2.802

10.  Infection rate in mandibular angle fractures treated with a 2.0-mm 8-hole curved strut plate.

Authors:  Peter Bui; Nagi Demian; Patrick Beetar
Journal:  J Oral Maxillofac Surg       Date:  2009-04       Impact factor: 1.895

View more
  5 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.  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

4.  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

5.  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
  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.