Danillo Costa Rodrigues1, Saulo Gabriel Moreira Falci2, Andrezza Lauria1, Érica Cristina Marchiori1, Roger William Fernandes Moreira1. 1. Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery Section, Oral Diagnosis Department, Piracicaba Dental School, P.O. Box 52, University of Campinas - UNICAMP, 13414-903, Piracicaba, SP, Brazil. 2. Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery Section, Oral Diagnosis Department, Piracicaba Dental School, P.O. Box 52, University of Campinas - UNICAMP, 13414-903, Piracicaba, SP, Brazil. Electronic address: saulofalci@hotmail.com.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The aim of the present study was to compare four methods of fixation in mandibular body fractures. STUDY DESIGN: Mechanical and photoelastic tests were performed using polyurethane and photoelastic resin mandibles, respectively. The study groups contained the following: (I), two miniplates of 2.0 mm; (II) one 2.0 mm plate and an Erich arch bar; (III) one 2.4 mm plate and an Erich arch bar, and (IV) one 2.0 mm plate and one 2.4 mm plate. The differences between the mean values were analyzed using Tukey's test, the Mann-Whitney test and the Bonferroni correction. RESULTS: Group II recorded the lowest resistance, followed by groups I, IV and III. The photoelastic test confirmed the increase of tension in group II. CONCLUSION: The 2.4 mm system board in linear mandibular body fractures provided more resistance and the use of only one 2.0 mm plate in the central area of the mandible created higher tension.
OBJECTIVE: The aim of the present study was to compare four methods of fixation in mandibular body fractures. STUDY DESIGN: Mechanical and photoelastic tests were performed using polyurethane and photoelastic resin mandibles, respectively. The study groups contained the following: (I), two miniplates of 2.0 mm; (II) one 2.0 mm plate and an Erich arch bar; (III) one 2.4 mm plate and an Erich arch bar, and (IV) one 2.0 mm plate and one 2.4 mm plate. The differences between the mean values were analyzed using Tukey's test, the Mann-Whitney test and the Bonferroni correction. RESULTS: Group II recorded the lowest resistance, followed by groups I, IV and III. The photoelastic test confirmed the increase of tension in group II. CONCLUSION: The 2.4 mm system board in linear mandibular body fractures provided more resistance and the use of only one 2.0 mm plate in the central area of the mandible created higher tension.