Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Study of Efficacy and the Comparison Between 2.0 mm Locking Plating System and 2.0 mm Standard Plating System in Mandibular Fractures

  • Comparative Study
  • Published:
Journal of Maxillofacial and Oral Surgery Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and comparison between 2.0 mm locking plate system and 2.0 mm Champy’s titanium mini plating system in mandible fractures.

Materials and Methods

A total of 20 patients with mandibular fractures were selected and divided into two groups A and B on randomized basis. Group A was treated with open reduction internal fixation using 2.0 mm locking plates and group B with 2.0 mm Champy’s titanium miniplates. All patients were followed up for 12 weeks postoperatively.

Results

Results of the study show less screw loosening, less precision in plate adaptation and less alteration of the osseous or occlusal relationship upon screw tightening in group A. Chi square test was applied to compare the results between the two groups. Statistical analysis did not show significant difference of incidence of malocclusion between the two groups (p value = 0.606). Statistical analysis using un-paired t test showed significant difference of working time between the two groups (p value = 0.00296). When comparing the overall complication rates according to plates used, the χ2 test showed no statistically significant difference between the locking and nonlocking plates (p > 0.05).

Conclusion

It is observed in our study that the locking plate/screw system offers significant advantages over the conventional plating system. The precise adaptation required for using conventional plates is not needed when this locking plate/screw system is used. Locking plate/screw system provides better stability than the conventional plate/screw system.

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
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Champy M, Loddé JP, Schmitt R, Jaeger JH, Muster D (1978) Mandibular osteosynthesis by miniature screwed plates via a buccal approach. J Maxillofac Surg 6(1):14–21

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Champy M, Wilk A, Schnebelen JM (1975) Treatment of mandibular fractures by means of osteosynthesis without intermaxillary immobilization according to F.X. Michelet’s technic. Zahn Mund Kieferheilkd Zentralbl 63(4):339–341

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Champy M, Lodde JP, Jaeger JH, Wilk A (1976) Mandibular osteosynthesis according to the Michelet technic. I. Biomechanical bases. Rev Stomatol Chir Maxillofac 77(3):569–576

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Champy M, Lodde JP, Jaeger JH, Wilk A, Gerber JC (1976) Mandibular osteosynthesis according to the Michelet technic. II. Presentation of new material. Results. Rev Stomatol Chir Maxillofac 77(3):577–582

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Champy M, Lodde JP, Muster D, Wilk A, Gastelo L (1977) Osteosynthesis using miniaturized screws on plates in facial and cranial surgery. Indications and results in 400 cases. Ann Chir Plast 22(4):261–264

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Champy M, Lodde JP (1977) Study of stresses in the fractured mandible in man. Theoretical measurement and verification by extensometric gauges in situ. Rev Stomatol Chir Maxillofac 78(8):545–551

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Champy M, Loddé JP, Grasset D, Muster D, Mariano A (1977) Mandibular osteosynthesis and compression. Ann Chir Plast 22(2):165–167

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Waiss W, Gosau M, Koyama K, Reichert TE (2011) Maxillary and mandibular fractures. Treatment concepts in maxillofacial surgery. HNO 59(11):1079–1087

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Gilardino MS, Chen E, Bartlett SP (2009) Choice of internal rigid fixation materials in the treatment of facial fractures. Craniomaxillofac Trauma Reconstr 2(1):49–60

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Ellis E III, Walker LR (1996) Treatment of mandibular angle fractures using one noncompression miniplate. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 54(7):864–871 (discussion 871–2)

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Johansson B, Krekmanov L, Thomsson M (1988) Miniplate osteosynthesis of infected mandibular fractures. J Craniomaxillofac Surg 16(1):22–27

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Valentino J, Levy FE, Marentette LJ (1994) Intraoral monocortical miniplating of mandible fractures. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 120(6):605–612

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Lamphier J, Ziccardi V, Ruvo A, Janel M (2003) Complications of mandibular fractures in an urban teaching center. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 61(7):745–749 (discussion 749–50)

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Schön R, Roveda SI, Carter B (2001) Mandibular fractures in Townsville, Australia: incidence, aetiology and treatment using the 2.0 AO/ASIF miniplate system. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg 39(2):145–148

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Parmar BS, Makwana KG, Patel AM, Tandel RC, Shah J (2014) Use of a single 2.0-mm locking AO reconstruction titanium plate in linear, non-comminuted, mandible fractures. Ann Maxillofac Surg 4(1):51–54

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Iizuka T, Lindqvist C (1992) Rigid internal fixation of mandibular fractures. An analysis of 270 fractures treated using the AO/ASIF method. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 21(2):65–69

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Schmoker R, Von Allmen G, Tschopp HM (1982) Application of functionally stable fixation in maxillofacial surgery according to the ASIF principles. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 40(7):457–461

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Sauerbier S, Schön R, Otten JE, Schmelzeisen R, Gutwald R (2008) The development of plate osteosynthesis for the treatment of fractures of the mandibular body—a literature review. J Craniomaxillofac Surg 36(5):251–259

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Egol KA, Kubiak EN, Fulkerson E, Kummer FJ, Koval KJ (2004) Biomechanics of locked plates and screws. J Orthop Trauma 18(8):488–493

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Gardner MJ, Helfet DL, Lorich DG (2004) Has locked plating completely replaced conventional plating? Am J Orthop (Belle Mead NJ) 33(9):439–446

    Google Scholar 

  21. Ellis E 3rd, Graham J (2002) Use of a 2.0-mm locking plate/screw system for mandibular fracture surgery. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 60(6):642–645 (discussion 645–6)

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Agarwal M, Mohammad S, Singh RK, Singh V (2011) Prospective randomized clinical trial comparing bite force in 2-mm locking plates versus 2-mm standard plates in treatment of mandibular fractures. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 69(7):1995–2000

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Oguz Y, Uckan S, Ozden AU, Uckan E, Eser A (2009) Stability of locking and conventional 2.0-mm miniplate/screw systems after sagittal split ramus osteotomy: finite element analysis. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 108(2):174–177

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Neumayer B (1991) Optimizing titanium osteosynthesis miniplates. Some basic considerations. Dtsch Z Mund Kiefer Gesichtschir 15(4):265–270

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Heinl T, Neumayer B (1987) Preformed titanium osteosynthesis plate for fractures of the mandibular angle. Schweiz Monatsschr Zahnmed 97(8):985–989

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Chiodo TA, Ziccardi VB, Janal M, Sabitini C (2006) Failure strength of 2.0 locking versus 2.0 conventional synthes mandibular plates: a laboratory model. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 64(10):1475–1479

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Collins CP, Pirinjian-Leonard G, Tolas A, Alcalde R (2004) A prospective randomized clinical trial comparing 2.0-mm locking plates to 2.0-mm standard plates in treatment of mandible fractures. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 62(11):1392–1395

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Smith WP (1991) Delayed miniplate osteosynthesis for mandibular fractures. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg 29(2):73–76

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Singh V, Kumar I, Bhagol A (2011) Comparative evaluation of 2.0-mm locking plate system vs. 2.0-mm nonlocking plate system for mandibular fracture: a prospective randomized study. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 40(4):372–377

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. 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(2):167–170

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. 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(11):1319–1326

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Gbara A, Heiland M, Schmelzle R, Blake F (2008) Mechanical aspects of a multidirectional, angular stable osteosynthesis system and comparison with four conventional systems. J Craniomaxillofac Surg 36(3):152–156

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Gbara A, Heiland M, Schmelzle R, Blake F (2008) Clinical implementation of a multidirectional, angular stable osteosynthesis system in maxillofacial traumatology. J Craniomaxillofac Surg 36(3):157–160

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Gutwald R, Alpert B, Schmelzeisen R (2003) Principle and stability of locking plates. Keio J Med 52(1):21–24

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Tuovinen V, Nørholt SE, Sindet-Pedersen S, Jensen J (1994) A retrospective analysis of 279 patients with isolated mandibular fractures treated with titanium miniplates. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 52(9):931–935

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Kamineni Institute of Dental Sciences, Sreepuram, Narketpally, Nalgonda (Dist.), 508254, Andhra Pradesh, India

    B. Pavan Kumar, K. A. Jeevan Kumar, V. Venkatesh, A. P. Mohan, K. Ramesh & K. Mallikarjun

Authors
  1. B. Pavan Kumar
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. K. A. Jeevan Kumar
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. V. Venkatesh
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. A. P. Mohan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. K. Ramesh
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. K. Mallikarjun
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to B. Pavan Kumar.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Kumar, B.P., Kumar, K.A.J., Venkatesh, V. et al. Study of Efficacy and the Comparison Between 2.0 mm Locking Plating System and 2.0 mm Standard Plating System in Mandibular Fractures. J. Maxillofac. Oral Surg. 14, 799–807 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12663-014-0718-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12663-014-0718-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation