Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Two miniplates versus 3-dimensional plate in the management of mandibular subcondylar fractures: a retrospective analysis

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

The aim of the present study was to evaluate the outcomes in patients with subcondylar fracture of mandible treated with 2 single miniplates compared to a 3-dimensional (3D) plate.

Patients and methods

This is a retrospective study which included patients diagnosed and treated for mandibular subcondylar fracture from January 2015 to December 2019. Included patients were divided into two groups, group 1: 2 miniplate group and group 2: 3D plate group. The data was obtained from the patients’ records and evaluated for various outcomes including occlusal stability, postoperative complications like plate fracture, non-union, plate or screw loosening, and plate or screw infection leading to implant removal, wound dehiscence, salivary fistula, and facial nerve paralysis. The statistical analysis was performed using chi square test and Student’s t test.

Results

A total 58 patients (43 males and 15 females) were enrolled in the two groups ranging from 21 to 59 years. A total of 35 patients were recruited in group 1, whereas 23 patients were recruited in group 2. There was no statistically significant difference in the two groups with regard to the age range, gender, diagnosis, side of fracture, and accompanying fractures. Occlusal instability, wound dehiscence, and facial nerve paralysis was found in both the groups. Group 1 had 1 patient which required implant removal due to screw loosing, whereas group 2 had 2 patients which required plate removal due to plate fracture. One patient in group 2 required second surgery for fixation of fracture due to non-union. One patient in group 1 developed a sialocele postoperatively. However, there was no statistically significant difference in any of the variables assessed among the two groups (p > 0.05).

Conclusion

The results of our study indicate that the 2 miniplates and 3D plate system are effective in the management of mandibular subcondylar fractures.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Marker P, Nielsen A, Bastian HL (2000) Fractures of the mandibular condyle. Part 1: patterns of distribution of types and causes of fractures in 348 patients. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg 38(05):417–421

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Asim MA, Ibrahim MW, Javed MU, Zahra R, Qayyum MU (2019) Functional outcomes of open versus closed treatment of unilateral mandibular condylar fractures. J Ayub Med Coll Abbottabad 31(01):67–71

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Singh V, Bhagol A, Goel M, Kumar I, Verma A (2010) Outcomes of open versus closed treatment of mandibular subcondylar fractures: a prospective randomized study. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 68(06):1304–1309

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Anirudhan A, Khalam SA, Zachariah RK (2013) Evaluation of clinical use of indigenously developed delta plate in management of subcondylar fracture. Clin Pract 3(2):e28. https://doi.org/10.4081/cp.2013.e28

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  5. Chaudhary M, Pant H, Singh M, Vashistha A, Kaur G (2015) Evaluation of trapezoidal-shaped 3-D plates for internal fixation of mandibular subcondylar fractures in adults. J Oral Biol Craniofacial Res 5(3):134–139. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jobcr.2015.07.005

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Zide MF, Kent JN (1983) Indications for open reduction of mandibular condyle fractures. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 41(02):89–98

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Kanno T, Sukegawa S, Tatsumi H, Karino M, Nariai Y, Nakatani E, Furuki Y, Sekine J (2016b) Does a retromandibular transparotid approach for the open treatment of condylar fractures result in facial nerve injury? J Oral Maxillofac Surg 74:2019–2032

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Cortelazzi R, Altacera M, Turco M, Antonicelli V, De Benedittis M (2015) Development and clinical evaluation of MatrixMANDIBLE subcondylar plates system (Synthes). Craniomaxillofac Trauma Reconstr 8:94–99

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Valiati R, Ibrahim D (2008) Mer Abreu et al. The treatment of condylar fractures: to open or not to open? A critical review of this controversy. Int J Med Sci 5(6):313–318

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Eckelt U, Schneider M, Erasmus F, Gerlach KL, Kuhlisch E, Loukota R, Rasse M, Schubert J, Terheyden H (2006) Open versus closed treatment of fractures of the mandibular condylar processe – a prospective randomized multi-centre study. J Cranio-Maxillofacial Surg 34:306–314

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Choi K-Y, Yang J-D, Chung H-Y, Cho B-C (2012) Current concepts in the mandibular condyle fracture management part II: open reduction versus closed reduction. Arch Plast Surg 39(4):301–308

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Spinzia A, Patrone R, Belli E, Dell’Aversana Orabona G, Ungari C, Filiaci F, Agrillo A, de Riu G, Meloni SM, Liberatore G, Piombino P (2014) Open reduction and internal fixation of extracapsular mandibular condyle fractures: a long-term clinical and radiological follow-up of 25 patients. BMC Surg 14:68

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Choi BH, Yi CK, Yoo JH (2001) Clinical evaluation of 3 types of plate osteosynthesis for fixation of condylar neck fractures. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 59:734–737

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Parascandolo S, Spinzia A, Parascandolo S, Piombino P, Califano L (2010) Two load sharing plates fixation in mandibular condylar fractures: biomechanical basis. J Craniomaxillofac Surg 38(5):385–390

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Costa FW, Bezerra MF, Ribeiro TR, Pouchain EC (2012) VdeP Saboia, Soares ECS Biomechanical analysis of titanium plate systems in mandibular condyle fractures: a systematized literature review. Acta Cir Bras 27(6):424–429

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Wilson AW, Ethunandan M, Brennan PA (2005) Transmasseteric antero-parotid approach for open reduction and internal fixation of condylar fractures. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg 43:57–60

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Kanno T, Sukegawa S, Fujioka M, Takabatake K, Furuki Y (2011) Transoral open reduction with rigid internal fixation for subcondylar fractures of the mandible using a small angulated screwdriver system: is endoscopic assistance necessary? J Oral Maxillofac Surg 69:e372–e384

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Pereira-Filho V, Welsh B, Schübel F, Landes C, Sader R, Gabrielli M, Monnazzi M (2011) Intraoral approach for treatment of displaced condylar fractures: case report. Cranio- maxillofac Trauma Reconstr 4:107–112

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Arcuri F, Brucoli M, Baragiotta N, Benech R, Ferrero S, Benech A (2012) Analysis of complications following endoscopically assisted treatment of mandibular condylar fractures. J Craniofac Surg 23:e196–e198

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Meyer C, Zink S, Chatelain B, Wilk A (2008) Clinical experience with osteosynthesis of subcondylar fractures of the mandible using TCP plates. J Craniomaxillofac Surg 36:260–268

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Hou J, Chen L, Wang T, Jing W, Tang W, Long J, Tian W, Liu L (2014) A new surgical approach to treat medial or low condylar fractures: the minor parotid anterior approach. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol 117:283–288

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Sikora M, Olszowski T, Sielski M, Stąpor A, Janiszewska-Olszowska J, Chlubek D (2015) The use of the transparotid approach for surgical treatment of condylar fractures - own experience. J Craniomaxillofac Surg 43:1961–1965

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Ahuja SA, Galinde J, Asnani U, Mistry YA (2018) Comparative evaluation of clinical out- comes using delta plates and conventional miniplates for internal fixation of mandibular condylar fractures in adults. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 76:1255–1266

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Sukegawa S, Kanno T, Masui M, Sukegawa-Takahashi Y, Kishimoto T, Sato A, Furuki Y (2019) Which fixation methods are better between three-dimensional anatomical plate and two miniplates for the mandibular subcondylar fracture open treatment? Journal of Cranio-Maxillo-Facial Surgery 47:771–777

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Dentistry, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh, India

    Anshul Rai

  2. Consultant Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeon, Nagpur, Maharashtra, India

    Anuj Jain

  3. Department of Trauma and Emergency Medicine, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh, India

    Anuj Jain

  4. Department of Dentistry, Atal Bihari Vajpayee Government Medical College, Vidisha, Madhya Pradesh, India

    Rishi Thukral

Authors
  1. Anshul Rai
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Anuj Jain
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Rishi Thukral
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Anuj Jain.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

Not required

Additional information

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Rai, A., Jain, A. & Thukral, R. Two miniplates versus 3-dimensional plate in the management of mandibular subcondylar fractures: a retrospective analysis. Oral Maxillofac Surg 25, 457–461 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10006-021-00938-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10006-021-00938-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation