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

Abstract

Aim To study whether the use of 3-D miniplate, when compared with conventional miniplate, gives better clinical outcomes with fewer complications in patients with fracture mandible. Materials and Methods A prospective study was conducted in the Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Trauma Care Centre, on 40 patients. They were randomly divided into Group-I and Group-II with 20 patients in each group. In Group-I, 3-D miniplate was used and in Group-II, conventional miniplate was used. Parameters such as fracture stability, occlusal status, mouth opening, nerve paresthesia, infection, pain, swelling, and complications were evaluated on 1st, 7th postoperative day, 1st month and 3rd month. Results Fracture stability and occlusion were clinically better in Group-I than in Group-II on each follow-up; however, it was not statistically significant. Infection rate was lesser in Group-I than in Group-II (p = 0.003). Mouth opening was more in Group-II than in Group-I on immediate (p = 0.001) and 7th post-op day (p = 0.002). Overall complications were lesser in Group-I than in Group-II (p [ 0.005). Conclusion There is no major difference observed in clinical outcomes between 3-D miniplate and conventional miniplate. Either method of fixation can be used successfully in treatment of mandible fractures with comparable rates of complications.

Seur K plate versus lateral border miniplate for fixation of isolated mandibular angle fracture

“…The operating time of Suer K-miniplate was longer than the lateral border miniplate. This finding was consistent with studies done by Mishra et al [23] , Jain et al [28] and Singh et al [29] who found that the geometric miniplate system took more time in the angle region as compared with single miniplates. However there was no significant difference between the two groups and this is similar to Al-Moraissi et al results ( p = 0.141 between two groups).…”

“…[2] The postoperative mouth opening in both groups showed almost equal results at different time point and there wasn't statistical significance difference between the two groups. This may slightly differs from Mishra et al [23] results at 7th postoperative day findings as there was a significant difference between the geometric miniplates and the single miniplate. This may be due to their design of the geometric plate that needed more periosteal stripping than the Suer K-miniplate.…”

“…This may be due to their design of the geometric plate that needed more periosteal stripping than the Suer K-miniplate. However the postoperative mouth opening at the end of the follow up showed similar results with Mishra et al [23] and Vineeth et al [24] Regarding the occlusion, the Suer k-miniplate showed superior results by the end of the 1st month but there wasn't statistical significant difference between the two groups by the end of [3] months postoperative. Vineeth et al [24] showed no difference in the postoperative occlusion neither one month, [3] months postoperatively.…”

“…[20,13] In a meta-analysis, Al-Moraissi et al compared the use of one miniplate anteriorly along the external oblique ridge using intraoral approach versus lateral cortex using intraoral and transbuccal approaches and revealed that the transbuccaly placed miniplate showed superior results over the transorally plate. [2] Several trials were done to design geometric miniplates [21,22,23,24,25,3] and their results were compared to the single mono-cortical non compression miniplates. A significant decrease was seen in the incidence of postoperative complications using geometric miniplates than with conventional miniplates.…”

MH cortical screws, a revolutionary orthodontic TADs design

“…Even with good oral hygiene, long-term placement of plates is a factor that favors deterioration of tissue health because retention protocol requires placement until age 20. [ 21 ] The MH novel design of screws allows for multiple screw applications in a flapless technique with the ability to attach mini-plates above and away from the tissues without any contact, then secure that plate using small cover screws to the central holes of the MH screws [ Figure 5 ]. The clinician can use four to six screws as needed.…”