Osasuyi Anslem1, Okoturo Eyituoyo2, Ogunbanjo V Olabode3, Olaitan A Ademola3, Ayodele O Adesina4. 1. Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Nigerian Air Force Hospital, Nigerian Air Force Base, Kaduna, Nigeria. 2. Head and Neck Surgical Oncology Division, Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery Department, Lagos State University College of Medicine/Teaching Hospital, Lagos, Nigeria. eyituoyo.okoturo@lasucom.edu.ng. 3. Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery Department, Lagos State University College of Medicine/Teaching Hospital, Lagos, Nigeria. 4. Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery Department, General Hospital, Lagos, Nigeria.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The main goal of treatment of mandibular fractures is to restore normal dental occlusion and promote appropriate bone healing and a normal mouth opening. Recently, there has been a resurgent interest in the use of screws for intermaxillary fixation of mandibular fractures. This study was therefore designed to determine how the clinical outcomes of the use of screws for intermaxillary fixation compare with the use of miniplates in the treatment of mandibular fractures in Nigeria. OBJECTIVES: The objectives of this study are as follows: 1. To compare the clinical outcomes of the use of 2.0 mm × 9.0 mm screws for intermaxillary fixation with 2.0 mm noncompression miniplates in the treatment of simple unilateral mandibular fractures in Lagos, Nigeria 2. To determine the clinical outcomes in the use of 2.0 mm × 9.0 mm screws for intermaxillary fixation (IMF) and 2.0 mm noncompression miniplates in the treatment of simple unilateral mandibular fractures 3. To compare the complications associated with the use of 2.0 mm × 9.0 mm screws for IMF and 2.0 mm noncompression miniplates in the treatment of mandibular fractures METHODOLOGY: This randomized controlled clinical study was carried out at the Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery of the study institution. Subjects with simple unilateral mandibular fractures who met the inclusion criteria were randomly allocated into the study (intermaxillary fixation screw) and control (miniplate) groups through balloting. Factors assessed and compared during and after the procedures included intraoperative pain, postoperative nerve impairment, postoperative occlusion, limitation of mouth opening, incidence of hardware failure, incidence of infection and non-union. Data was analysed using the Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) version 20. RESULTS: A total of 56 subjects participated in the study, with 28 subjects in each group. Majority (91%) of the subjects were male. Road traffic crash was the highest aetiological factor while sport was the least (3.6%). A higher proportion (25.0%) of subjects in the miniplate group had major complications compared with 14.3% in the IMF screw group. There was no statistically significant association between site of mandibular fracture, time elapsed before treatment and complications (p < 0.05). All cases of mandibular fractures healed successfully at 6 weeks. CONCLUSION: The use of screws for IMF is as effective as 2.0 mm noncompression miniplates in the treatment of simple unilateral mandibular fractures.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: The main goal of treatment of mandibular fractures is to restore normal dental occlusion and promote appropriate bone healing and a normal mouth opening. Recently, there has been a resurgent interest in the use of screws for intermaxillary fixation of mandibular fractures. This study was therefore designed to determine how the clinical outcomes of the use of screws for intermaxillary fixation compare with the use of miniplates in the treatment of mandibular fractures in Nigeria. OBJECTIVES: The objectives of this study are as follows: 1. To compare the clinical outcomes of the use of 2.0 mm × 9.0 mm screws for intermaxillary fixation with 2.0 mm noncompression miniplates in the treatment of simple unilateral mandibular fractures in Lagos, Nigeria 2. To determine the clinical outcomes in the use of 2.0 mm × 9.0 mm screws for intermaxillary fixation (IMF) and 2.0 mm noncompression miniplates in the treatment of simple unilateral mandibular fractures 3. To compare the complications associated with the use of 2.0 mm × 9.0 mm screws for IMF and 2.0 mm noncompression miniplates in the treatment of mandibular fractures METHODOLOGY: This randomized controlled clinical study was carried out at the Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery of the study institution. Subjects with simple unilateral mandibular fractures who met the inclusion criteria were randomly allocated into the study (intermaxillary fixation screw) and control (miniplate) groups through balloting. Factors assessed and compared during and after the procedures included intraoperative pain, postoperative nerve impairment, postoperative occlusion, limitation of mouth opening, incidence of hardware failure, incidence of infection and non-union. Data was analysed using the Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) version 20. RESULTS: A total of 56 subjects participated in the study, with 28 subjects in each group. Majority (91%) of the subjects were male. Road traffic crash was the highest aetiological factor while sport was the least (3.6%). A higher proportion (25.0%) of subjects in the miniplate group had major complications compared with 14.3% in the IMF screw group. There was no statistically significant association between site of mandibular fracture, time elapsed before treatment and complications (p < 0.05). All cases of mandibular fractures healed successfully at 6 weeks. CONCLUSION: The use of screws for IMF is as effective as 2.0 mm noncompression miniplates in the treatment of simple unilateral mandibular fractures.
Authors: Griffin Harold West; Jason Alan Griggs; Ravi Chandran; Harry Vincent Precheur; William Buchanan; Ron Caloss Journal: J Oral Maxillofac Surg Date: 2013-09-25 Impact factor: 1.895