Biomechanical study on monocortical osteosynthesis for the fracture of the mandible

Ikemura, Kunio; Kouno, Yasutaka; Shibata, Haruo; Yamasaki, Kei

doi:10.1016/s0300-9785(84)80038-1

Cited by 26 publications

(12 citation statements)

References 4 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Non-compressive miniplate fixation of angle fractures has gained popularity as a standard treatment approach in different health centers due to its low morbidity and complications (14-16). In addition, some in vitro studies suggest that using a second miniplate along the inferior border theoretically creates a second osteosynthesis line and helps stabilize the fixation protecting the fractures against rotation and torsion (16, 17); however, treatment-related complications from using2 miniplates was reported to be high (18). Levy et al (1991) demonstrated two monocortical miniplates to have lower complications than a single miniplate for internal fixation of mandibular angle fractures (19).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Mandibular Angle Fractures: Comparison of One Miniplate vs. Two Miniplates

Yazdani¹,

Talesh²,

Motamedi³

et al. 2013

Trauma Mon

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Mandibular Angle Fractures: Comparison of One Miniplate vs. Two Miniplates

Yazdani¹,

Talesh²,

Motamedi³

et al. 2013

Trauma Mon

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Removal of teeth may increase complications that adversely affect bone healing. [20][21][22][23][24] Identical principles of repair applied to human maxillofacial fixation using miniplate osteosynthesis can be applied to the dog and cat (see Ch. In order to enhance the environment for bone healing (and maximize the stability of the fracture repair), teeth that are present within a fracture line generally are not removed unless they cannot be stabilized.…”

Section: Craniomaxillofacial Bone Healingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Maxillofacial bone healing

Härle¹,

Boudrieau²

2012

Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery in Dogs and Cats

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Diese Methodik wurde durch Ikemura et al [18] durch lokale Schwä-chung des Knochens im Bereich der zu erwartenden Frakturlokalisation durch Setzen von Bohrkanälen modifiziert [15,18,29]. Durch die lokale Schwächung des Knochens im Bereich des beabsichtigten Frakturlinienverlaufs wird eine exakte Reposition der Fragmente verhindert, da eine linguale bzw.…”

Section: Diskussionunclassified