Journal of Maxillofacial and Oral Surgery

, Volume 18, Issue 1, pp 65–72 | Cite as

3-D Miniplates Versus Conventional Miniplates in Treatment of Mandible Fractures

  • Niranjan MishraEmail author
  • Nirav Thakkar
  • Indubhusan Kar
  • Shadab Ali Baig
  • Gaurav Sharma
  • Rosalin Kar
  • Gyana Ranjan Sahu
  • Krishna Gopal Birmiwal
Comparative Study



To study whether the use of 3-D miniplate, when compared with conventional miniplate, gives better clinical outcomes with fewer complications in patients with fracture mandible.

Materials and Methods

A prospective study was conducted in the Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Trauma Care Centre, on 40 patients. They were randomly divided into Group-I and Group-II with 20 patients in each group. In Group-I, 3-D miniplate was used and in Group-II, conventional miniplate was used. Parameters such as fracture stability, occlusal status, mouth opening, nerve paresthesia, infection, pain, swelling, and complications were evaluated on 1st, 7th postoperative day, 1st month and 3rd month.


Fracture stability and occlusion were clinically better in Group-I than in Group-II on each follow-up; however, it was not statistically significant. Infection rate was lesser in Group-I than in Group-II (p = 0.003). Mouth opening was more in Group-II than in Group-I on immediate (p = 0.001) and 7th post-op day (p = 0.002). Overall complications were lesser in Group-I than in Group-II (p > 0.005).


There is no major difference observed in clinical outcomes between 3-D miniplate and conventional miniplate. Either method of fixation can be used successfully in treatment of mandible fractures with comparable rates of complications.


3-D miniplate Conventional miniplate Mandible fracture 


Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of interest



  1. 1.
    Chrcanovic BR (2012) Open versus closed reduction: mandibular condylar fractures in children. Oral Maxillofac Surg 16(3):245–255CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Al-Belasy FA (2005) A short period of maxillomandibular fixation for treatment of fractures of the mandibular tooth-bearing area. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 63:953–956CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Zix J, Lieger O, Iizuka T (2007) Use of straight and curved 3-dimensional titanium miniplates for fracture fixation at the mandibular angle. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 65:1758–1763CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Gear AJ, Apasova E, Schmitz JP, Schubert W (2005) Treatment modalities for mandibular angle fractures. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 63:655–663CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Champy M, Lodde JP, Schmidt R (1978) Mandibular osteosynthesis by miniature screwed plates via a buccal approach. J Maxillofacial Surg 6:14CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Champy M, Pape HD, Gerlach KL, Lodde VP (1986) The Strasbourg miniplate osteosynthesis. In: Krüger E, Schilli W, Worthington P (eds) Oral and maxillofacial traumatology, vol II. Quintessence, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Ellis E (1999) Treatment methods for fractures of the mandibular angle. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 28:243–252CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Al-Moraissi EA, El-Sharkawy TM, El-Ghareeb TI, Chrcanovic BR (2014) Three dimensional versus standard miniplate fixation in the management of mandibular angle fractures: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 43:708–716CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Farmand M, Dupoirieux L (1992) The value of 3-dimensional plates in maxillofacial surgery. Maxillofac Surg 93:353Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Alkan A, Çelebi N, Özden B, Baş B, İnal S (2007) Biomechanical comparison of different plating techniques in repair of mandibular angle fractures. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 104:752–756CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Meyer C, Serhir L, Boutemi P (2006) Experimental evaluation of three osteosynthesis devices used for stabilizing condylar fractures of the mandible. J Craniomaxillofac Surg 34:173–181CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Jain MK, Manjunath KS, Bhagwan BK, Shah DK (2010) Comparison of 3-dimensional and standard miniplate fixation in the management of mandibular fractures. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 68:1568–1572CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Vineeth K, Lalitha RM, Prasad K, Ranganath K, Shwetha V, Singh J (2013) A comparative evaluation between single noncompression titanium miniplate and three dimensional titanium miniplate in treatment of mandibular angle fracture-a randomized prospective study. J Craniomaxillofac Surg 41:103–109CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Malhotra K, Sharma A, Giraddi G, Shahi AK (2012) Versatility of titanium 3D plate in comparison with conventional titanium miniplate fixation for the management of mandibular fracture. J Maxillofac Oral Surg 11:284–290CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Mittal G, Reddy R, Cariappa KM (2012) Three dimensional titanium mini plates in oral & maxillofacial surgery: a prospective clinical trial. J. Maxillofac Oral Surg 11(2):152–159CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Feledy J, Caterson EJ, Steger S, Stal S, Hollier L (2004) Treatment of mandibular angle fractures with a matrix miniplate: a preliminary report. Plast Reconstr Surg 114:1711–1716CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Guimond C, Johnson JV, Marchena JM (2005) Fixation of mandibular angle fractures with a 2.0-mm 3-dimensional curved angle strut plate. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 63:209–214CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Hochuli-Vieira E, Ha T, Pereira-Filho V, Landes CA (2011) Use of rectangular grid miniplates for fracture fixation at the mandibular angle. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 69:1436–1441CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Bui P, Demian N, Beetar P (2009) Infection rate in mandibular angle fracture treated with a 2.0-mm 8-hole curved strut plate. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 67:804CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Al-Moraissi EA, Mounair RM, El-Sharkawy TM, El-Ghareeb TI (2014) Comparison between three dimensional and standard miniplates in the management of mandibular angle fractures: a prospective, randomized, double-blind, controlled clinical study. Int J Oral Maxillofac, SurgGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Singh V, Puri P, Arya S, Malik S, Bhagol A (2012) Conventional versus 3-dimensional miniplate in management of mandibular fracture: a prospective randomized study. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 147:450–455CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    LamphierJ Ziccardi V, Ruvo A, Janel M (2003) Complications of mandibular fractures in an urban teaching center. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 61:745–750CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    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 Maxillofac Surg 59:879–884CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Levy FE, Smith RW, Odland RM, Marentette LJ (1991) Monocortical miniplate fixation of mandibular angle fractures. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 117:149–154CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Pal US, Singh RK, Dhasmana S, Das S, Das SK (2013) Use of 3-D plate in displaced angle fracture of mandible. Craniomaxillofac Trauma Reconstr 6:25–30CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Babu S, Parmar S, Menat M et al (2007) Three dimensional miniplate rigid fixation in fracture mandible. J Maxillofac Oral Surg 6(2):14–16Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Fox AJ, Kellman RM (2003) Mandibular angle fracture: two- miniplate fixation and Complications. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 5:464–469Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Sawatari Y et al (2016) The use of three-dimensional strut plates for the management of mandibular angle fractures: a retrospective analysis of 222 patients. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Assael LA (1994) Treatment of mandibular fractures: plate and screw fixation. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 52:757–761CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Siddiqui A, Markose G, Moos KF, McMahon J, Ayoub AF (2007) one miniplate versus two in the management of mandibular angle fractures: a prospective randomised study. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg 45:223–225CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Potter J, Ellis E 3rd (1999) Treatment of mandibular angle fractures with a malleable noncompression miniplate. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 57:288–292 (discussion 292–293) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Koury ME (1997) Complications in the treatment of mandibular fractures. In: Kaban LB, Pogrell AH, Perrot D (eds) Complications in oral and maxillofacial surgery. Saunderpp, Philadelphia, pp 121–146Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Ellis E (1996) Complications of rigid internal fixation for mandibular fractures. J Craniomaxillofac Trauma 2:32Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Moore E, Bayrak S, Moody M, Key JM, Vural E (2013) Hardware removal rates for mandibular angle fractures: comparing the 8-hole strut and Champy plates. J Craniofac Surg 24:163–165CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Pandey V et al (2015) Management of mandibular angle fractures using a 1.7 mm 3-dimensional strut plate. J Oral BiolCraniofac Res. Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons of India 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Niranjan Mishra
    • 1
    Email author return OK on get
  • Nirav Thakkar
    • 1
  • Indubhusan Kar
    • 1
  • Shadab Ali Baig
    • 1
  • Gaurav Sharma
    • 2
  • Rosalin Kar
    • 3
  • Gyana Ranjan Sahu
    • 1
  • Krishna Gopal Birmiwal
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Oral and Maxillofacial SurgerySCB Dental College and HospitalCuttackIndia
  2. 2.Department of Public Health DentistrySCB Dental College and HospitalCuttackIndia
  3. 3.Department of Prosthetic DentistrySCB Dental College and HospitalCuttackIndia

Personalised recommendations