Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

A comparison between 2.0-mm standard and 2.0-mm locking miniplates in the management of mandibular fractures

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

Abstract

Purpose

The purpose of this clinical study was to compare effectiveness of 2.0-mm locking miniplates and screws with 2.0-mm standard miniplates and screws in treating mandible fractures.

Patients and methods

A randomized prospective study comprising of 40 samples, where 20 patients (group 1) were treated with locking plates and 20 patients (group 2) were treated with standard miniplates. All the cases were evaluated for the type of fracture, need for the Intermaxillary Fixation (IMF) and its duration, duration of surgery, anatomic reduction, paresthesia / neurosensory changes, occlusal discrepancies, infection at the fracture site and any need for the removal of the plates and screws.

Results

In our study Road Traffic Accidents (RTA) accounted for the majority of patients 30 (70%). RTA was more prevalent (52.5%) in 21–30 age group, with assault being more common (67%) in 25–35 years. There was a significant difference between group 1 and 2 in postoperative occlusal discrepancy and need for IMF (p=0.008). There was no significant difference in complication rates between group 1 and group 2 patients.

Conclusion

Locking plate/screw system proved to be more rigid than conventional plate/ screw system, thereby reducing the need and duration of IMF. However there was no significant difference in complication rates.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Mukerji R, Mukerji G, McGurk M (2006) Mandibular fractures: Historical perspective. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg 44(3): 222–228

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Schmelzeisen R, McIff T, Rahn B (1992) Further development of titanium miniplate fixation for mandibular fractures. Experience gained and questions raised from a prospective clinical pilot study with 2.0 mm fixation plates. J Craniomaxillofac Surg 20(6): 251–256

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Collins C P, 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 

  4. 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 

  5. Alpert B, Gutwald R, Schmelzeisen R (2003) New innovations in craniomaxillofacial fixation: the 2.0 lock system. Keio J Med 52(2): 120–127

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Chiodo TA, Zicardi 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 

  7. Banks Peter (1993) “Killey’s fracture of the mandible” Vergese Publishing House, 4th edition

  8. Fonseca Raymond J and Robert V. Walter (1997) “Oral and maxillofacial trauma” Pennsylvania; W.B. Saunders company, 2nd edition vol 1; 473–522

    Google Scholar 

  9. Hayter JP, Cawood JI (1993) The functional case for miniplates in maxillofacial surgery. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 22(2): 91–96

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Allan BP, Daly CG (1990) Fractures of the mandible a 35 year retrospective study. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 19(5): 268–271

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Lindahl L (1977) Condylar fractures of the mandible. Int J Oral Surg 6(1): 12–21

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Brown JS, Grew N, Taylor C, Millar BG (1991) Intermaxillary fixation compared to miniplate osteosynthesis in the management of the fractured mandible: an audit. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg 29(5): 308–311

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Fordyce AM, Lalani Z, Sangra AK, Hildreth AJ, Carton AT, Hawkesford JE (1999) Intermaxillary fixation is not usually necessary to reduce Mandibular fractures. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg 37(1): 52–57

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. John. D. Langdon, Mohan F. Patel (1998) Mandibular osteosynthesis. Chapman and Hall Medical 339–346

  15. Jaques B, Richter M, Arza A (1997) Treatment of Mandibular Fractures with Rigid 0steosyn thesis: Using the A0 System. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 55(12): 1402–1406

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Maloney PL, Lincoln RE, Coyne CP (2001) A Protocol for the management of compound mandibular fractures based on the time from injury to treatment. J Oral Maxiilofac Surg 59(8): 879–884

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Moreno JC, Fernandez A, Ortiz JA, Montalvo JJ (2000) Complication Rates Associated with Different Treatments for Mandibular Fractures. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 58(3): 273–280

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Glinberg RW, Laskin DM, Blaustein DI. The effects of immobilization on the primate temporomandibular joint. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 40(1): 3–8

  19. Chritah A, Lazow SK, Julius R. 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: 1737–1741

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. 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 

  21. Ellis E III, 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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

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

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Cabrini Gabrielli MA, Real Gabrielli MF, Marcantonio E, Hochuli-Vieira E (2003) Fixation of Mandibular Fractures With 2.0 mm Miniplates: Review of 191 Cases. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 61(4): 430–436

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Kuriakose MR, Fardy M, Sirikumara M, Pattern DW, Sugar AW (1996) A comparative review of 266 mandibular fractures with internal fixation using rigid (AO/ASIF) plates or miniplates. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg 34(4): 315–321

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Dept. of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, JSS Dental College, SS Nagar, Bannimantap, Mysore, 570015, India

    D. Saikrishna, Sujeeth Kumar Shetty & T. R. Marimallappa

Authors
  1. D. Saikrishna
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Sujeeth Kumar Shetty
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. T. R. Marimallappa
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to T. R. Marimallappa.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Saikrishna, D., Shetty, S.K. & Marimallappa, T.R. A comparison between 2.0-mm standard and 2.0-mm locking miniplates in the management of mandibular fractures. J. Maxillofac. Oral Surg. 8, 145–149 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12663-009-0036-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12663-009-0036-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation