No abstract

BackgroundMonocortical miniplate fixation is an accepted and reliable method for internal fixation of mandibular angle fractures. Although placement of a second miniplate may theoretically provide more stability; however, the clinical importance of this issue remains controversial.ObjectivesThe present study assessed the postoperative complications and outcomes associated with the fixation of mandibular angle fractures using 1 and 2 miniplates in patients with favorable mandibular angle fractures.Patients and MethodsA prospective study of 87 patients (73 males, 14 females) with favorable mandibular angle fractures was done. In the first group, a 4-hole miniplate was placed at the superior border through an intraoral approach. In group 2, patients were treated with 2 miniplates, one placed at the superior border (similar to group 1) and the other on the lateral aspect of the angle at the inferior border through an intraoral and transcutaneous approach using a trocar. Postoperative complications including malocclusion, malunion and sensory disturbances associated with surgery, additional maxillomandibular fixation (MMF) by means of an arch bar and wires for a longer period (for delayed union) and infection were assessed in patients of both groups up to 12 months postoperatively. The data were analyzed using the chi-square test.ResultsIn the single miniplate group, 25 patients showed lip numbness associated with surgery (55.6%), 22 patients required additional use of MMF (48.9%) and 3 patients developed infections (6.7%). In the double miniplate group 20 patients showed lip numbness associated with surgery (47.6%), 18 patients required additional use of MMF (42.9%) and 1 patient developed infection (2.4%). None of the patients in either group showed malocclusion or malunion. No significant difference was observed between the groups regarding overall complication rate.ConclusionsIn this study, use of one miniplate or two miniplates for treatment of favorable mandibular angle fractures was associated with a similar incidence of complications. Thus, it seems that the use of two miniplates in this setting may not be warranted, nor cost-efficient.

Background. The inferior alveolar canal should be examined as a significant anatomical landmark, particularly in the posterior body and ramus of the mandible, for dental and surgical procedures. In the present study, the effects of two pathological lesions, ameloblastoma and keratocystic odontogenic tumor, on canal displacement were investigated.Methods. This study had a single-blinded design. Twenty-six patients with lesions in the mandible referred to Imam Reza Hospital, Tabriz, Iran, were studied in two equal groups (13 patients with a histopathological diagnosis of ameloblastoma and 13 with a histopathological diagnosis of odontogenic keratocyst). After confirming the initial incisional biopsy and pathological report, cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) of lesions larger than 3 cm mesiodistaly and those involving the mandibular posterior body and ramus were included in the study. Two maxillofacial surgeons in association with an oral and maxillofacial radiologist examined three points on CBCT images to determine the mandibular canal position relative to the lesions from the lingual and buccal aspects.Results. The results of statistical analyses showed that in ameloblastoma, the inferior alveolar canal had been displaced more buccally in the ramus area (point A) (84.6%) but in the distal region (point C), the displacement was less buccal (41.6%). The canal was displaced buccally in 53.8% of cases at point A and in 46.2% of cases at point C in KOT lesions. Finally chi-squared test did not show any statistically significant differences between these two lesions.Conclusion. The results of this study showed no relationship between these lesions and the displacement of the mandibular canal.

No abstract