Intermaxillary fixation is not usually necessary to reduce mandibular fractures

Introduction The purpose/aim of the study conducted was to compare the efficiency between two principles of plating system, 3D non locking mini plates versus 3D locking mini plates. Materials and Methods A total of 20 adult patients were selected according to the inclusion criteria and divided into two groups of locking plates/screws and non-locking plates/screws of ten each. All patients were treated with 2.0 mm 3D locking and non locking mini plates and screw system. Comparison of ease of use, functional stability, operator's comfort were tabulated. Results A total of 27 fractures in 20 patients were treated. Each group contained ten patients. Fracture reduction was good in all the cases. At the follow up of 3 months, all fractures had healed, only one patient had a occlusal discrepancy. Conclusion There was no difference in the stability in both the groups. Intra operatively locking group consumed more time in fixation as it demands precision in making a hole exactly in the centre of plate necessitating the use of drill guide. Clinical and radiographic healing was good in both the groups.

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Standard 3D Titanium Miniplate Versus Locking 3D Miniplate in Fracture of Mandible: A Prospective Comparative Study

Singh

Arunkumar

2015

“…Many authors have also suggested a small period postoperative inter-maxillary fixation with the use of miniplates, again for which arch bars were needed [3,4]. Many authors faced problem in restoring exact maxillo-mandibular occlusion without inter-dental fixation [10] also many authors concluded that in case of comminuted fracture plating alone was not sufficient. But Champy did not advice inter-maxillary fixation intra-or post-operatively.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Use of Miniplates in Parasymphysis Fractures : A Survey Conducted Among Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons of India

Saluja

Dehane

Kini

et al. 2012

Aim of the study was to find out the number of miniplates used by Indian Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons for parasymphysis fractures. A survey was done among Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons of India at the 34th annual meeting of Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons of India. Four questions were given to each individual to find out their opinion regarding use of miniplates in parasymphysis fractures. Eighty-eight per cent of Indian surgeons were in favour of using intra-operative or postoperative intermaxillary fixation. Thirty-eight per cent responded in favour of using single miniplate for parasymphysis fracture instead of using two miniplates. Fiftyfour per cent maxillofacial surgeons use various modifications depending on different conditions. Forty-two per cent of maxillofacial surgeons accepted that lower arch bar can be used as a tension band. Use of miniplates for the treatment of parasymphysis fracture varies from centre to centre and from surgeon to surgeon. Though miniplates are best used following Champy's principle, still many surgeons use single miniplate. Arch bars placed for intermaxillary fixation can be used as a tension band, again eliminating the need for upper plate.

“…In Merkx splints the gingivitis appeared particularly more severe but periodontal ligament appeared somewhat less affected [13]. Fordyce reported that in his study on intermaxillary fixation with arch bar or eyelet wires, the time taken for fixation was minimum of 40 min [14]. Aldegheri and Blanc reported the wiring technique using pearl steel wire which required less than 5 min.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Treatment of Mandibular Fractures Using Intermaxillary Fixation and Vacuum Forming Splints: A Comparative Study

Trupthi

Chowdhury²,

Shah

et al. 2013

Objective The study was done to compare the clinical efficacy of vacuum formed splints and arch bar in treating minimally displaced mandibular fractures. Method Forty patients were included in two groups. Group 1 was treated with custom made splints and group 2 with conventional arch bar. Patients were recalled on 3rd, 7th, 14th day and on the day of removal of the appliance. Periodontal status, stability of appliance and chair side time were evaluated. Results The mean chair side time taken by vacuum formed splint was 18.05 min and conventional arch bar fixation was 68.25 min. 8.3 % of patients with vacuum formed splints had poor oral hygiene in comparison with 25 % of patients with conventional arch bar. 70 % of patients with vacuum formed splints and 60 % of the patients with conventional arch bars were comfortable in mastication during treatment. Conclusion Vacuum formed splints has better advantages over arch bar with respect to chair side time, periodontal health, patient's compliance of maintaining oral hygiene, mastication and speech. Vacuum formed splints avoid needle stick injuries. So, they can be used for intermaxillary fixation in minimally displaced mandibular fractures.