Skip to main content
Top
Published in: Journal of Maxillofacial and Oral Surgery 1/2014

01-03-2014 | Comparative Study

Effectiveness of 2.0 mm Standard and 2.0 mm Locking Miniplates in Management of Mandibular Fractures: A Clinical Comparative Study

Authors: Mahaboob Shaik, T. Subba Raju, N. Koteswara Rao, Chandra Kiran Reddy

Published in: Journal of Maxillofacial and Oral Surgery | Issue 1/2014

Login to get access

Abstract

To compare and evaluate the effectiveness of 2.0 mm locking miniplates versus 2.0 mm standard miniplates in treatment of mandible fractures. Sixty randomly selected patients who sustained mandibular fractures were selected for this study. The fractured fragments were stabilized using 2.0 mm locking miniplates in 30 cases and in the remaining 30 cases the fractured fragments were fixed with conventional 2.0 mm miniplates. Post-operative stability was assessed with radiographs at 7th day, 1st, and 3rd months. The stability of the reduced fracture was assessed clinically and both the types of plates were assessed with an OPG or conventional radiographs. This study shows favorable results on use of locking miniplates in mandibular fractures. The results show that there were no significant differences in the post-operative complications between the conventional and the locking plate/screw mandibular systems. The locking plate/screw system was more rigid than conventional plate/screw system, thereby reducing the need and duration of intermaxillary fixation (IMF).
Literature
1.
go back to reference Hayter JP, Cawood JI (1993) The functional case for miniplates in maxillofacial surgery. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 22(4):91–96PubMedCrossRef Hayter JP, Cawood JI (1993) The functional case for miniplates in maxillofacial surgery. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 22(4):91–96PubMedCrossRef
2.
go back to reference Haug RH, Street CC, Goltz M (2002) Does plate adaptation affect stability? A biomechanical comparison of locking and nonlocking plates. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 60:1319–1326PubMedCrossRef Haug RH, Street CC, Goltz M (2002) Does plate adaptation affect stability? A biomechanical comparison of locking and nonlocking plates. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 60:1319–1326PubMedCrossRef
3.
go back to reference Alpert B, Gutwald R, Schmelzeisen R (2003) New innovations in craniomaxillofacial fixation: the 2.0 lock system. Keio J Med 52:120–127PubMedCrossRef Alpert B, Gutwald R, Schmelzeisen R (2003) New innovations in craniomaxillofacial fixation: the 2.0 lock system. Keio J Med 52:120–127PubMedCrossRef
4.
go back to reference Kuriakose MA, Fardy M, Sirikumara M, Patton DW, Sugar AW (1996) A comparative review of 266 mandibular fractures with internal fixation using rigid (AO/ASIF) plates or mini-plates. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg 34:315–321PubMedCrossRef Kuriakose MA, Fardy M, Sirikumara M, Patton DW, Sugar AW (1996) A comparative review of 266 mandibular fractures with internal fixation using rigid (AO/ASIF) plates or mini-plates. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg 34:315–321PubMedCrossRef
5.
go back to reference Chritah A, Lazow SK, Berger JR (2005) Transoral 2.0 mm locking miniplate fixation of mandibular fractures plus 1 week of maxillomandibular fixation: a prospective study. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 63:1737–1741PubMedCrossRef Chritah A, Lazow SK, Berger JR (2005) Transoral 2.0 mm locking miniplate fixation of mandibular fractures plus 1 week of maxillomandibular fixation: a prospective study. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 63:1737–1741PubMedCrossRef
6.
go back to reference Bolourian R, Lazow S, Berger J (2002) Transoral 2.0 mm miniplate fixation of mandibular fractures plus 2 weeks maxillomandibular fixation: a prospective study. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 60:167–170PubMedCrossRef Bolourian R, Lazow S, Berger J (2002) Transoral 2.0 mm miniplate fixation of mandibular fractures plus 2 weeks maxillomandibular fixation: a prospective study. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 60:167–170PubMedCrossRef
7.
go back to reference Fordyce AM, Lalani Z, Songra AK, Hildreth AJ, Carton ATM, Hawkesford JE (1999) Intermaxillary fixation is not usually necessary to reduce mandibular fractures. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg 37:52–57PubMedCrossRef Fordyce AM, Lalani Z, Songra AK, Hildreth AJ, Carton ATM, Hawkesford JE (1999) Intermaxillary fixation is not usually necessary to reduce mandibular fractures. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg 37:52–57PubMedCrossRef
8.
go back to reference Ellis E III, Graham J (2002) Use of 2.0 mm locking plate/screw system for mandibular fracture surgery. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 60:642–645PubMedCrossRef Ellis E III, Graham J (2002) Use of 2.0 mm locking plate/screw system for mandibular fracture surgery. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 60:642–645PubMedCrossRef
9.
go back to reference Villarreal PM, Junquera LM, Martinez A, Consuegra LG (2000) Study of mandibular fracture repair using quantitative radiodensitometry: a comparison between maxillomandibular and rigid internal fixation. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 58:776–781PubMedCrossRef Villarreal PM, Junquera LM, Martinez A, Consuegra LG (2000) Study of mandibular fracture repair using quantitative radiodensitometry: a comparison between maxillomandibular and rigid internal fixation. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 58:776–781PubMedCrossRef
10.
go back to reference Gutwald R, Alpert B, Schmelzeisen R (2003) Principle and stability of locking plates. Keio J Med 52:21–24PubMedCrossRef Gutwald R, Alpert B, Schmelzeisen R (2003) Principle and stability of locking plates. Keio J Med 52:21–24PubMedCrossRef
11.
go back to reference Chiodo TA, Ziccardi VB, Janal M, Sabtini C (2006) Failure strength of 2.0 locking versus 2.0 conventional Synthes mandibular plates: a laboratory model. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 64:1475–1479PubMedCrossRef Chiodo TA, Ziccardi VB, Janal M, Sabtini C (2006) Failure strength of 2.0 locking versus 2.0 conventional Synthes mandibular plates: a laboratory model. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 64:1475–1479PubMedCrossRef
12.
go back to reference Singh V, Kumar I, Bhagol A (2011) Comparative evaluation of 2.0 mm locking plate system vs 2.0 mm non locking plate system for mandibular fracture: a prospective randomized study. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 40:372–377PubMedCrossRef Singh V, Kumar I, Bhagol A (2011) Comparative evaluation of 2.0 mm locking plate system vs 2.0 mm non locking plate system for mandibular fracture: a prospective randomized study. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 40:372–377PubMedCrossRef
13.
go back to reference SaiKrishna D, Sujeethkumarshetty, Marimallappa TR (2009) A comparison between 2.0 mm standard and 2.0 mm locking miniplates in the management of mandibular fractures. J Maxillofac Oral Surg 8:145–149PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef SaiKrishna D, Sujeethkumarshetty, Marimallappa TR (2009) A comparison between 2.0 mm standard and 2.0 mm locking miniplates in the management of mandibular fractures. J Maxillofac Oral Surg 8:145–149PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef
14.
go back to reference Nakamura S, Masuichiro Y (1994) Complications of miniplate osteosynthesis for mandibular fractures. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 52:233–238PubMedCrossRef Nakamura S, Masuichiro Y (1994) Complications of miniplate osteosynthesis for mandibular fractures. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 52:233–238PubMedCrossRef
15.
go back to reference Shetty V, McBreathy D, Fourney M, Caputo AA (1995) Fracture line stability as a function of the internal fixation system. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 53:791–801PubMedCrossRef Shetty V, McBreathy D, Fourney M, Caputo AA (1995) Fracture line stability as a function of the internal fixation system. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 53:791–801PubMedCrossRef
16.
go back to reference Seemann R, Frerich B, Muller S, Koenke R, Ploder O, Schicho K, Piffko J (2009) Comparison of locking and nonlocking plates in the treatment of mandibular condyle fractures. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 108:328–334PubMedCrossRef Seemann R, Frerich B, Muller S, Koenke R, Ploder O, Schicho K, Piffko J (2009) Comparison of locking and nonlocking plates in the treatment of mandibular condyle fractures. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 108:328–334PubMedCrossRef
17.
go back to reference Halpern LR, Kaban LB, Dodson TB (2004) Perioperative neurosensory changes associated with treatment of mandibular fractures. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 62:576–581PubMedCrossRef Halpern LR, Kaban LB, Dodson TB (2004) Perioperative neurosensory changes associated with treatment of mandibular fractures. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 62:576–581PubMedCrossRef
18.
go back to reference Kirkpatric D, Gandhi R, Vansickels JE (2003) Infections associated with locking reconstruction plates: a retrospective review. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 61:462–466CrossRef Kirkpatric D, Gandhi R, Vansickels JE (2003) Infections associated with locking reconstruction plates: a retrospective review. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 61:462–466CrossRef
19.
go back to reference Mathog RH, Toma V, Clayman L, Wolf S (2000) Nonunion of the mandible: an analysis of contributing factors. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 58:746–752PubMedCrossRef Mathog RH, Toma V, Clayman L, Wolf S (2000) Nonunion of the mandible: an analysis of contributing factors. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 58:746–752PubMedCrossRef
Metadata
Title
Effectiveness of 2.0 mm Standard and 2.0 mm Locking Miniplates in Management of Mandibular Fractures: A Clinical Comparative Study
Authors
Mahaboob Shaik
T. Subba Raju
N. Koteswara Rao
Chandra Kiran Reddy
Publication date
01-03-2014
Publisher
Springer India
Published in
Journal of Maxillofacial and Oral Surgery / Issue 1/2014
Print ISSN: 0972-8279
Electronic ISSN: 0974-942X
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s12663-012-0443-x

Other articles of this Issue 1/2014

Journal of Maxillofacial and Oral Surgery 1/2014 Go to the issue