Single linear miniplate versus rectangular grid plate in the treatment of mandibular angle fractures: A prospective, clinico-radiographic, comparative study.

National Journal of Maxillofacial Surgery Pub Date : 2023-01-01 Epub Date: 2023-04-14 DOI:10.4103/njms.njms_129_22
Manthan Kumar Das, Madan Mishra, Gaurav Singh, Shubhamoy Mondal
{"title":"Single linear miniplate versus rectangular grid plate in the treatment of mandibular angle fractures: A prospective, clinico-radiographic, comparative study.","authors":"Manthan Kumar Das,&nbsp;Madan Mishra,&nbsp;Gaurav Singh,&nbsp;Shubhamoy Mondal","doi":"10.4103/njms.njms_129_22","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Study design: </strong>Randomized Control Trial.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>A prospective, clinico-radiographic, comparative study was planned to evaluate the treatment outcome and postoperative complications in isolated mandibular angle fractures using 2.0-mm system single linear 4 hole with gap miniplate versus 4 hole rectangular grid plate, both stabilized with 4 8-mm monocortical screws.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Thirty patients with isolated mandibular angle fractures were randomly categorized into two groups with 15 patients each. Group 1 patients were treated with single 2.0 mm × 4 hole linear miniplate along the superior border and Group 2 patients were treated with a 2.0 mm × 4 hole rectangular grid plate on lateral cortex of mandible. Pain, swelling, occlusion, bite force, maximum inter-incisal opening, intraoperative time, facial nerve injury, fracture stability, and postoperative complications were assessed and compared at regular intervals up to 12 months.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>There was no major difference in terms of treatment outcome in both systems and both were equally effective without any statistically significant difference in any of the parameters. None of the patients presented with any of the complications except for postoperative infection which was reported by 1 patient from each group at 3 months postoperatively and were managed conservatively.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Both plating systems are equally effective; however, the rectangular grid plate could be a safe and effective alternative to the single miniplate when adaptation and fixation is not possible along the external oblique ridge of the mandible (e.g., fracture with bone loss along the superior border).</p>","PeriodicalId":18827,"journal":{"name":"National Journal of Maxillofacial Surgery","volume":"14 1","pages":"47-54"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/dc/03/NJMS-14-47.PMC10235730.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"National Journal of Maxillofacial Surgery","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4103/njms.njms_129_22","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/4/14 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Study design: Randomized Control Trial.

Objective: A prospective, clinico-radiographic, comparative study was planned to evaluate the treatment outcome and postoperative complications in isolated mandibular angle fractures using 2.0-mm system single linear 4 hole with gap miniplate versus 4 hole rectangular grid plate, both stabilized with 4 8-mm monocortical screws.

Methods: Thirty patients with isolated mandibular angle fractures were randomly categorized into two groups with 15 patients each. Group 1 patients were treated with single 2.0 mm × 4 hole linear miniplate along the superior border and Group 2 patients were treated with a 2.0 mm × 4 hole rectangular grid plate on lateral cortex of mandible. Pain, swelling, occlusion, bite force, maximum inter-incisal opening, intraoperative time, facial nerve injury, fracture stability, and postoperative complications were assessed and compared at regular intervals up to 12 months.

Results: There was no major difference in terms of treatment outcome in both systems and both were equally effective without any statistically significant difference in any of the parameters. None of the patients presented with any of the complications except for postoperative infection which was reported by 1 patient from each group at 3 months postoperatively and were managed conservatively.

Conclusion: Both plating systems are equally effective; however, the rectangular grid plate could be a safe and effective alternative to the single miniplate when adaptation and fixation is not possible along the external oblique ridge of the mandible (e.g., fracture with bone loss along the superior border).

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
单一线性微型钢板与矩形网格钢板治疗下颌角骨折:一项前瞻性临床放射学对比研究。
研究设计:随机对照试验。目的:计划进行一项前瞻性、临床放射学、比较研究,评估使用2.0mm系统单线性4孔间隙微型钢板与4孔矩形网格钢板治疗孤立性下颌角骨折的疗效和术后并发症,两种钢板均用4颗8-mm单皮质螺钉固定。方法:将30例孤立性下颌角骨折患者随机分为两组,每组15例。第1组采用单块2.0mm×4孔上缘线性微型钢板,第2组采用2.0mm×。每隔12个月定期评估和比较疼痛、肿胀、咬合、最大切迹间开口、术中时间、面神经损伤、骨折稳定性和术后并发症。结果:两种系统的治疗结果没有重大差异,两种系统都同样有效,任何参数都没有任何统计学显著差异。除了术后感染外,没有任何患者出现任何并发症。术后3个月,每组1名患者报告了术后感染,并进行了保守治疗。结论:两种电镀系统效果相同;然而,当无法沿着下颌骨的外斜嵴进行适应和固定时(例如,沿着上边界的骨折伴骨丢失),矩形网格板可能是单个微型板的安全有效的替代方案。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Soft skills for personal development of the surgeon for improved outcomes for patient and surgeon. Oral rhabdomyosarcoma of mandibular region: A case report. Evaluation of efficacy of simvastatin in bone regeneration following local application in third molar extraction socket: A randomized control trial. Comparative evaluation of implant stability and crestal bone level between tapered and cylindrical implants in the posterior regions of the mandible: A prospective, randomized, split-mouth clinical trial. Comparative and clinical evaluation between piezoelectric and conventional rotary techniques for mandibular impacted third molar extraction.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1