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
- 22 Downloads
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.
KeywordsMandibular fracture Fixation Miniplates Microplates
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
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 was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.
- 3.Rahim AUR, Warraich RA (2009) Mandibular fracture osteosynthesis: a comparison of three techniques. Pakistan Oral Dent J 29:201–206Google Scholar
- 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.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.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
- 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.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.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
- 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. https://doi.org/10.1097/GOX.0000000000000859 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- 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. https://doi.org/10.4103/2231-0762.144575 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- 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.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. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12663-016-0919-1 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar