Which fixation methods are better between three-dimensional anatomical plate and two miniplates for the mandibular subcondylar fracture open treatment?

Abstract

PurposeTo compare the clinical outcomes of a single three-dimensional (3-D) anatomical plate versus two conventional straight miniplates for the open treatment of mandibular subcondylar fractures. MethodsThis retrospective clinical study included patients with mandibular subcondylar fractures treated by the retromandibular transparotid approach using a 3-D plate or two straight miniplates. Outcome variables included preoperative conditions of patients and fractures, extent of postoperative bone healing, and incidence of complications. Other variables included age, sex, fracture site, and follow-up duration. Variables were evaluated using descriptive statistics and compared between groups. ResultsTwenty-eight fractures were analyzed: 13 fractures using 3-D plate and 15 fractures using two straight miniplates. None of the assessed variables showed significant differences between the two groups (p < 0.05). Unfortunately, in the 3-D plate group, reoperation was necessary for nonunion owing to plate breakage in one case with a bone defect around the fracture. ConclusionThe 3-D plate and two straight miniplates were equally effective for the surgical management of mandibular subcondylar fractures. Although a 3-D plate is sufficient for a typical simple fracture, in cases with a bone defect around the fracture, selection of the plate fixation method should be carefully considered.