Comparison of biting force when using a combination of one microplate and one miniplate versus two miniplates for fixation of parasymphyseal mandibular fracture: the use of microplates for parasymphyseal mandibular fracture

  • Magdy Mohamed ZakyEmail author
  • Nabila Ali Fayed
  • Mohamed Farid Shehab
Original Article



This study was to assess the efficiency of using a combination of one microplate and one miniplate for management of patients with parasymphyseal mandibular fractures versus two miniplates through measurement of the biting force.

Patients and methods

The study sample consisted of sixteen patients with an isolated mandibular fracture and randomly divided into two groups; group I was managed using two miniplates, while group II was managed using a combination of one microplate at subapical region and one miniplate at the inferior border of the mandible. The biting force was measured at 1 week, 1 month, and 3 months follow-up visits. A control group consisted of 40 healthy adult volunteers was selected to measure the normal biting force.


The mean of the normal biting force of the control group was 435 N ± 219, 103.2 N ± 4.8, and 390.6 N ± 195.4 at right molar, incisor, and left molar regions respectively. There was a statistically non-significant difference regarding the bite force of both study groups, with a progressive increase through the different follow-up visits and a period of 3 months is sufficient for recovery of patients to regain their normal biting force.


Consequently a combination of one microplate and one miniplate is efficient for the management of isolated parasymphyseal mandibular fracture in the same way as two miniplates.


Mandibular fracture Fixation Miniplates Microplates 


Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.


  1. 1.
    Hanson J, Lovald S, Cowgill I, Erdman M, Dianond B (2011) National hardware removal rate associated with internal fixation of facial fractur. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 69:1152–1158CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Sadeghi N, Motamedi M, Parandoosh P (2019) Patterns of maxillofacial fractures: a systematic review. Trauma Mon 24:e87169CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Rahim AUR, Warraich RA (2009) Mandibular fracture osteosynthesis: a comparison of three techniques. Pakistan Oral Dent J 29:201–206Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Abreu MER, Viegas VN, Ibrahim D et al (2009) Treatment of comminuted mandibular fractures: a critical review. Med Oral Patol Oral Cir Bucal 14:E247–E251PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Hirani NN, Pujara N (2015) Comparison of open reduction and internal fixation in case of symphysis and parasymphysis mandible fracture. Int J Sci Res (IJSR) 4:2129–2131CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Al-Belasy FA (2005) A short period of maxillomandibular fixation for treatment of fractures of the mandibular tooth-bearing area. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 63:953–956. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Binahmed A, Sansalone C, Garbedian J, Sándor GKB (2007) The lingual splint: an often forgotten method for fixating pediatric mandibular fractures. J Can Dent Assoc (Tor) 73:521–524Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Khalifa M, Elhawary H, Hussein M (2012) Titanium three dimensional miniplate versus conventional titanium miniplate in fixation of anterior mandibular fractures. Life Sci J 9:1006–1010Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Betharia AR, Dolas R (2016) Efficacy of the Lag screw fixation for the treatment of anterior mandibular fracture. Int Dent J Students Res 4:111–115Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Burm JS, Hansen JE (2010) The use of microplates for internal fixation of mandibular fractures. Plast Reconstr Surg 125:1485–1492. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Feller KU, Richter G, Schneider M, Eckelt U (2002) Combination of microplate and miniplate for osteosynthesis of mandibular fractures: an experimental study. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 31:78–83. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Frisken KW, Dandie GW, Lugowski S, Jordan G (2002) A study of titanium release into body organs following the insertion of single threaded screw implants into the mandibles of sheep. Aust Dent J 47:214–217CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Nautiyal VP, Mittal A, Agarwal A, Pandey A (2013) Tissue response to titanium implant using scanning electron microscope. Natl J Maxillofac Surg 4:7–12. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Ahmed SS, Rehman SA, Ansari MK, Khan AA, Farooq O, Khan AH (2016) A comparative study on evaluation of role of 1.5 mm microplates and 2.0 mm standard miniplates in management of mandibular fractures using bite force as indicator of recommendation. Natl J Maxillofac Surg 7:39–44CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Anand D, Prasad K, Lalitha RMRK, Rajnikanth BR, Munoyath SK, Parimala Sagar VK, Sridhar P (2018) Bite force assessment of mandibular interforaminal fractures treated with combination of microplate and miniplate—a randomized control study. Craniomaxillofac Trauma Reconstr Open 2:e1–e8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Sakaguchi M, Ono N, Turuta H, Yoshiike JOT (1996) Development of new handy type occlusal force gauge. Jpn J Med Electron Biol Eng 34:53–55Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Kshirsagar R, Jaggi N, Halli R (2011) Bite force measurement in mandibular parasymphyseal fractures: a preliminary clinical study. Craniomaxillofac Trauma Reconstr 4:241–244. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Koç D, Dogan A, Bek B (2011) Effect of gender, facial dimensions, body mass index and type of functional occlusion on bite force. J Appl Oral Sci 19:274–279. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Shayesteh Moghaddam N, Jahadakbar A, Amerinatanzi A, Elahinia M, Miller M, Dean D (2016) Metallic fixation of mandibular segmental defects: graft immobilization and orofacial functional maintenance. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open 4:e858. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Abdelfadil E, Salem AS, Mourad SI, Al-Belasy FA (2013) Infected mandibular fractures: risk factors and management. J Oral Hyg Health 1:1–8. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Kumar S, Gattumeedhi SR, Sankhla B, Garg A, Ingle E, Dagli N (2014) Comparative evaluation of bite forces in patients after treatment of mandibular fractures with miniplate osteosynthesis and internal locking miniplate osteosynthesis. J Int Soc Prev Community Dent 4:S26–S31. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Gupta A, Singh V, Mohammad S (2012) Bite force evaluation of mandibular fractures treated with microplates and miniplates. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 70:1903–1908. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Agarwal S, Gupta DS, Khare G, Kukrega P, Satish K, Khan M (2017) Efficiency of open reduction and internal fixation in unilateral mandibular anterior fracture by using single miniplate with arch bar: a clinical study. TMU J Dent 4:133–137Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Raut R, Keerthi R, Vaibhav N, Ghosh A, Kamath Kateel S (2017) Single miniplate fixation for mandibular symphysis and parasymphysis fracture as a viable alternative to conventional plating based on Champy’s principles: a prospective comparative clinical study. J Maxillofac Oral Surg 16:113–117. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Magdy Mohamed Zaky
    • 1
    • 2
    Email author
  • Nabila Ali Fayed
    • 3
  • Mohamed Farid Shehab
    • 3
  1. 1.Faculty of DentistryCairo UniversityGizaEgypt
  2. 2.Alahrar Teaching Hospital at ZagazigZagazigEgypt
  3. 3.Cairo UniversityGizaEgypt

Personalised recommendations