Abstract
This study aims to identify and distinguish various factors that may influence the clinical symptoms (limited mouth opening and malocclusion) in patients with maxillofacial fractures. From January 2000 to December 2009, 963 patients with maxillofacial fractures were enrolled in this statistical study to aid in evaluating the association between various risk factors and clinical symptoms. Patients with fractured posterior mandibles tended to experience serious limitation in mouth opening. Patients who sustained coronoid fractures have the highest risk of serious limitation in mouth opening (OR = 9.849), followed by arch fractures, maxilla fractures, condylar fractures, zygomatic complex fractures and symphysis fractures. Meanwhile, the combined fracture of zygomatic arch and condylar process results in normal or mild mouth opening. High risks of sustaining malocclusion are preceded by the fracture of nasal bone (OR = 3.067), mandible, condylar neck/base, combined fracture of zygomatic arch and condylar process, mandibular body, bilateral condylar, dental trauma, mandibular ramus, symphysis, mandibular angle and mid-facial. Patients who experienced serious limitation in mouth opening are treated with surgery more frequently (OR = 2.118). No relationship exists between the treatment options and the patients with malocclusion.
Highlights
The primary goals in treating maxillofacial fractures are to establish and maintain normal occlusion and attain the preinjury mobility and function of the jaws and the preinjury 3-dimensional (3D) facial contours[1,2]
Patients who sustained fractures of the posterior mandible tended to be associated with serious limitation in mouth opening, compared with patients who sustained fractures of the anterior mandible, except angle fractures (OR = 1.249) and condylar head fractures (OR = 1.206)
Patients who sustained coronoid fractures had the highest risk of serious limitation in mouth opening (OR = 9.849), followed by arch fractures (OR = 3.202), maxilla fractures (OR = 2.914), condylar fractures (OR = 2.764), zygomatic complex fracture (ZCF) fractures (OR = 2.701) and symphysis fractures (OR = 2.694)
Summary
The primary goals in treating maxillofacial fractures are to establish and maintain normal occlusion and attain the preinjury mobility and function of the jaws and the preinjury 3-dimensional (3D) facial contours[1,2]. Numerous studies have been conducted on the epidemiology and treatment of maxillofacial fractures. Works on the basic mechanism of clinical symptoms, such as limited mouth opening and malocclusion, are limited; for instance, why different types of maxillofacial fractures display different symptoms in mouth opening and occlusion. On the basis of experience alone, the occurrence and type of maxillofacial fractures are difficult to determine. Maxillofacial fractures are difficult to treat effectively and accurately[3]. The exploration and analysis of the mechanism of the clinical symptoms of maxillofacial fractures could provide an in-depth understanding of the mechanism of maxillofacial fractures for an accurate and effective assessment of the patients’ condition and treatment of maxillofacial fractures, while reducing the individual, family, social and national burden and promoting www.nature.com/scientificreports/. The recovery of the patients’ daily life [communication (speech and facial expression), nutrition, breathing, hearing, vision and cosmetic consequences]17
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
