Advertisement

Bite Force as a Parameter for Comparison Between Three-Dimensional and Standard Titanium Miniplates for the Management of Anterior Mandibular Fractures: A Prospective Randomized Double-Blinded Clinical Trial

  • Manoj Kumar Jain
  • Priyadarshini Kerur
Comparative Study
  • 8 Downloads

Abstract

Background and Objectives

To compare the efficacy of three-dimensional (3D) miniplates with standard miniplates in the osteosynthesis of anterior mandibular fractures on the basis of bite force recordings and other clinical parameters.

Methods

A prospective randomized double-blinded clinical trial was carried out for the treatment of anterior mandibular fractures. In total, 20 patients were randomly divided into two groups of 2-mm 3D and standard titanium miniplates. The assessment of patients was done at weekly intervals for 6 weeks using bite force recordings and other clinical parameters.

Results

A statistically significant difference was found in the duration of surgery which was less in group A as compared to group B (p = 0.03). No significant difference was found in other clinical parameters.

Interpretation and Conclusion

The clinical outcome of both the 3D and standard miniplate systems in the present study was similar; however, the following advantages with the use of 3D miniplates can be highlighted:
  • Relatively lesser operating time.

  • Three-dimensional stability of the fracture site and simultaneous stabilization at superior and inferior borders in the fixation of mandibular fractures.

Keywords

3D plate system Mandibular fracture Miniplate osteosynthesis Bites force 

Notes

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

References

  1. 1.
    Mukerji R, McGurk M (2006) Mandibular fractures: historical perspective. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg 44:222–228CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Fonseca RJ (2005) Oral and maxillofacial trauma, vol 1, 3rd edn. W B Saunders Company, Philadelphia, pp 291–293Google 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 65:1758–1763CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Alkan A, Celebi N, Ozden B, Bas B, Inal S (2007) Biomechanical comparison of different plating techniques in repair of mandibular angle fractures. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Path Oral Radiol Endod 104:752–756CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bui P, Demian N, Beetar P (2009) Infection rate in mandibular angle fractures treated with a 2.0-mm 8-hole curved strut plate. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 67:804–808CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Gassner R, Tuli T, Hachl O, Rudisch A, Ulmer H (2003) Craniomaxillofacial trauma a 10 year review of 9543 cases with 21067 injuries. J Craniomaxillofac Surg 31:51–61CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Brasileiro BF, Passeri LA (2006) Epidemiological analysis of maxillofacial fractures in Brazil: a 5-year prospective study. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 102:28–34CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Tams J, Loon JP, Otten E, Rozema FR, Bos RRM (1997) A three-dimensional study of bending and torsion moments for different fracture sites in the mandible: an in vitro study. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 26:383–388CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    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 63:209–214CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Farmand M (1993) The 3D plating system in maxillofacial surgery. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 51(3):166–167Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Wittenberg JM, Mukherjee DP, Smith BR, Kruse RN (1997) Biomechanical evaluation of new fixation devices for mandibular angle fractures. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 26:68–73CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Fridrich KL, Pena-Velasco G, Olson RAJ (1992) Changing trends with mandibular fractures. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 50:586–589CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Khalifa ME, El-Hawary HE, Hussein MM (2012) Titanium three dimensional miniplate versus conventional titanium miniplate in fixation of anterior mandibular fractures. Life Sci J 9(2):1006Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Centres for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Definition for surgical site infection, Atlanta, GA (2002)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Jimson S, Sankar A, Prasad R (2009) Comparative study of stainless steel miniplates, three dimensional plate and titanium three dimensional plate for fixation of mandibular fractures. Int J Maxillofac Surg 03:380Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Vijay E, Balakrishnan R (2011) Three dimensional miniplate fixation in mandibular fractures. Indian J Multidiscip Dent 1(2):1Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Gear JLA, Apasova E, Schmitz JP, Schubert W (2005) Treatment modalities for mandibular angle fractures. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 63:655–663CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Tate GS, Ellis E III, Thockmorton GS (1994) Bite force in patients treated for mandible angle fractures: implications for rigid fixation. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 52:734–736CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    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 69:1995–2000CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Gerlach KL, Schwarz A (2002) Bite forces in patients after treatment of mandibular angle fractures with miniplate osteosynthesis according to champy. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 31:345–348CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Jain MK, Sankar K, Ramesh C, Bhatta R (2012) Management of mandibular interforaminal fractures using 3 dimensional locking and standard titanium miniplates—a comparative preliminary report of 10 cases. J Craniomaxillofac Surg 40(8):e475–e478CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Goyal M, Marya K, Chawla S, Pandey R (2011) Mandibular osteosynthesis: a comparative evaluation of two different fixation using 2.0 mm titanium miniplates and 3-D locking plates. J Maxillofac Oral Surg 10(1):32–37CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    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 Maxillofacial Surg 68:1568–1572CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Renton TF, Wiesenfeld D (1996) Mandibular fracture osteosynthesis: a comparison of three techniques. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg 34:166–173CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons of India 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Oral and Maxillofacial SurgerySri Hasanamba Dental College and HospitalHassanIndia
  2. 2.Department of Oral and Maxillofacial SurgeryInderprastha Dental College and HospitalSahibabad, GhaziabadIndia
  3. 3.Nuface/Sumukha ClinicHassanIndia

Personalised recommendations