Monocortical Miniplate Fixation Research Articles

Minimal access fixation of mandibular angle fracture.

Angle fractures represent the highest percentage of mandibular fractures. Fixation using a single miniplate ventral to oblique line of buccal cortex of the mandible was described by Champy et al. (1976). Ellis has documented low complication rate with monocortical miniplate fixation as a treatment for angle fractures. Most often used approaches are (a) extraoral approach, (b) intraoral approach, and (c) transbuccal approach. Each of these techniques has its pros and cons. We, in this note, propose an approach which sidelines the drawbacks of these approaches and has the combined advantages of these techniques. This technique results in no external scarring or injury to marginal mandibular nerve, and it also allows direct visualization and confirmation of occlusion during plate placement. This approach is through a contaminated area that poses a risk of infection. This approach of ours is based upon this pioneering works of Forrest. The approach proposed by us can aid an experienced maxillofacial surgeon to provide economical outpatient-based care to patients with minimally displaced/undisplaced angle fracture in a routine dental setup. This technique can be breakthrough for introduction of endoscopic approach for treating angle fracture.

Assessment of Lingual Stability in Mandible Fracture: Monocortical Versus Bicortical Fixation Using FEM Analysis.

The present study compares lingual stability of monocortical miniplate fixation with that of bicortical miniplate fixation in parasymphysis fracture using FEM analysis. Using multislice CT scanner, 3D FEM of patient's mandible was created. Fracture was simulated at parasymphysis region and fixed with 2-mm titanium miniplates and screws of length 8, 10, 12mm, respectively. Loading force of 120N applied at molar region and 62.8N at incisor region. These three models were imported into ANSYS Workbench FEM software. There is no significant difference in results between bicortical fixation and monocortical fixation. It was concluded that use of monocortical fixation provides sufficient lingual stability. This suggests monocortical fixation system is as reliable as bicortical fixation.

Mandibular Angle Fractures: Comparison of One Miniplate vs. Two Miniplates

BackgroundMonocortical miniplate fixation is an accepted and reliable method for internal fixation of mandibular angle fractures. Although placement of a second miniplate may theoretically provide more stability; however, the clinical importance of this issue remains controversial.ObjectivesThe present study assessed the postoperative complications and outcomes associated with the fixation of mandibular angle fractures using 1 and 2 miniplates in patients with favorable mandibular angle fractures.Patients and MethodsA prospective study of 87 patients (73 males, 14 females) with favorable mandibular angle fractures was done. In the first group, a 4-hole miniplate was placed at the superior border through an intraoral approach. In group 2, patients were treated with 2 miniplates, one placed at the superior border (similar to group 1) and the other on the lateral aspect of the angle at the inferior border through an intraoral and transcutaneous approach using a trocar. Postoperative complications including malocclusion, malunion and sensory disturbances associated with surgery, additional maxillomandibular fixation (MMF) by means of an arch bar and wires for a longer period (for delayed union) and infection were assessed in patients of both groups up to 12 months postoperatively. The data were analyzed using the chi-square test.ResultsIn the single miniplate group, 25 patients showed lip numbness associated with surgery (55.6%), 22 patients required additional use of MMF (48.9%) and 3 patients developed infections (6.7%). In the double miniplate group 20 patients showed lip numbness associated with surgery (47.6%), 18 patients required additional use of MMF (42.9%) and 1 patient developed infection (2.4%). None of the patients in either group showed malocclusion or malunion. No significant difference was observed between the groups regarding overall complication rate.ConclusionsIn this study, use of one miniplate or two miniplates for treatment of favorable mandibular angle fractures was associated with a similar incidence of complications. Thus, it seems that the use of two miniplates in this setting may not be warranted, nor cost-efficient.

Hardware Removal Rates for Mandibular Angle Fractures

To compare the removal rates of 8-hole angle strut plate and Champy line plate in repairing mandibular angle fractures. Retrospective chart review at a tertiary care academic center of adults who were at least 18 years old with at least 1 mandibular angle fracture of a traumatic origin who underwent open reduction and internal fixation by using single monocortical miniplate fixation in Champy line or by using 8-hole angle strut plate via transbuccal approach. The outcome measures were hardware removal rates and the reason for removal of the hardware. One hundred four patients with a total of 106 angle fractures met the inclusion criteria for this study. Seventy-three angle fractures were treated with the 8-hole strut, and 33 angle fractures were treated with the Champy line plates. There were 6 plates removed in both groups. This resulted in 8.2% of plates removed in the 8-hole strut plate group and 18.2% in the Champy line group (P = 0.133). Loose hardware was determined to be the cause of plate removal in 2 (2.7%) of the 8-hole strut plate group compared with all 6 (18.2%) of the Champy group (P = 0.005). Overall, removal rates between Champy line and 8-hole strut plates are not different in treating mandibular angle fractures, although the 8-hole strut plate has a lower rate of loose hardware-related plate removal compared with the Champy line plate.

Fixation of mandibular angle fractures: clinical studies

The purpose of this study was to review the literature regarding the evolution of current thoughts on fixation of mandibular angle fractures (MAFs). An electronic search in PubMed was undertaken in August 2012. The titles and abstracts from these results were read to identify studies within the selection criteria. Eligibility criteria included studies from the last 30 years (from 1983 onwards) reporting clinical studies of MAFs. The search strategy initially identified 767 studies. The references from 1983 onwards totaled 727 articles. Fifty-four studies were identified without repetition within the selection criteria. Two articles showing significance in the development of treatment techniques were included. Additional hand-searching yielded 13 additional papers. Thus, a total of 69 studies were included. Prospective randomized controlled studies of MAFs repair techniques are scarce. The available data at best predict that complications are associated with all kinds of fixation techniques. The similar results of complications in studies using different methods of fixation indicate that biomechanics are only one factor to be considered when treating MAFs. A second fracture in the mandible (which was observed in the majority of the studies' population) can confound the outcome data because the fixation requirements of a double fracture are often different from those for an isolated fracture. It can be necessary additional effort intended for increase of stability when using biodegradable plate system to fixate MAFs. The use of 1.3 mm malleable miniplates was associated with an unacceptable incidence of plate fracture, suggesting that this is not the most adequate system to treat MAFs. The use of the 3D grid plates has shown good clinical results. The efficiency of locking miniplate system is yet to be proven because there are few clinical studies with its use to fixate MAFs, although they have shown good results. When considering the use of semirigid or rigid fixation systems, the use of two miniplates outweigh the advantages of the use of one reconstruction plate, although the use of miniplates is not recommended for displaced comminuted MAFs. Although it has been shown that absolute rigid fixation is not necessary for fracture healing, any system that provides superior stability without impacting negatively on other aspects of the procedure, i.e., time, exposure, and cost, should be favored. MAFs can be treated in a highly effective way and with a relatively low rate of complications with monocortical miniplate fixation. The large number of studies on the treatment of MAF reflects the fact that a consensus has not been reached for a single, ideal treatment method.

Prospective clinical outcome of monocortical miniplate fixation in mandibular fractures

Objective: This prospective study evaluates the outcome and complications in isolated mandibular fractures treated with monocortical miniplate fixation. Methods: From May 2003 to September 2006, a total of 60 patients with fractures of the mandible including symphysis, parasymphysis, body and angle of the mandible were treated with monocortical miniplate fixation along Champy's lines of osteosynthesis and maxillomandibular fixation was placed 15 days postoperatively. Postoperative complications including infection, wound dehiscence, malocclusion, malunion, nonunion and nerve injury due to surgical manipulation were tabulated.

Simulation Model for Endoscopically Assisted Fixation of the Intraoral Vertical Subsigmoid Ramus Osteotomy

Objective: To create a simulation model for endoscopically assisted fixation of the intraoral vertical subsigmoid ramus osteotomy for training purposes.Materials and Methods: A polyurethane model of the upper and lower jaws in prognathism with or without mandibular asymmetry was created and covered by stretchable rubber material to simulate the cheeks. Vertical subsigmoid ramus osteotomy was performed intraorally in the usual manner. A straight endoscope was used intraorally to monitor and assist in fixation of the segments through the transbuccal approach.Results: Both monocortical miniplate fixation and bicortical screw fixation of the vertical subsigmoid ramus osteotomy were feasible using the above model, and enabled satisfactory stability and control of the segments while achieving the planned movements.Conclusion: The simulation model is a useful tool for learning the procedure of endoscopically assisted rigid fixation of the vertical subsigmoid ramus osteotomy.

Mandibular angle fractures: two-miniplate fixation and complications.

Noncompression monocortical miniplate fixation of the mandibular angle is an accepted and reliable method for providing rigid internal fixation. High complication rates have been reported for internal fixation of angle fractures. To analyze the outcome and complications in cases in which patients were treated with 2-miniplate fixation at the mandibular angle. A retrospective analysis of outcomes for a case series. Treatment performed at a level 1 trauma-rated teaching hospital. From May 1992 to September 2001, a total of 88 patients with angle fractures of the mandible were treated with 2-miniplate fixation. Sixty-eight of the 88 patients, with 70 angle fractures, were included in the study; 13 were unavailable for follow-up and 7 had less than the minimum follow-up of 6 weeks. The time of trauma to treatment, cause of injury, and associated fractures were recorded. Postoperative complications, including infection, malunion, nonunion, dehiscence, osteomyelitis, and nerve injury due to surgical manipulation, were tabulated. Follow-up examinations were performed up to 12 weeks after surgery, with additional examinations if necessary. Postreduction panoramic radiographs were obtained in most cases. No patients treated with monocortical 2-miniplate fixation had malunion, nonunion, or osteomyelitis. Twelve (17.6%) of the 68 patients were identified as having at least 1 postoperative complication. Postoperative infection occurred in 2 patients (2.9%). Infection was controlled with oral antibiotic therapy. One patient required removal of miniplates after the acute phase resolved. Occlusal disturbances were noted in 4 patients (5.9%) (2 with a slight anterior open bite, 1 with a crossbite, and 1 with premature contact of a molar) after surgery. Three of the 4 patients had associated midfacial or multiple mandibular fractures. None required further surgery. Wound dehiscence, with exposure of an underlying plate, occurred in 4 patients (5.9%); the wounds were treated conservatively and subsequently resolved. Nerve injury due to surgical manipulation occurred in 3 patients (4.4%). Monocortical 2-miniplate fixation of the mandibular angle is a reliable and effective technique for providing rigid fixation. The complications were minimal in our study, and the infection rate was 2.9%, which is comparable to or better than the infection rate reported with the use of a single miniplate fixation technique in other studies. Disturbances of occlusion were associated with midfacial or additional mandibular fractures. In view of the contradictory published results, further studies are needed to determine the ideal approach for noncompression monocortical plate fixation of angle fractures.

Supplemental maxillomandibular fixation with miniplate osteosynthesis.

Monocortical miniplate fixation provides biomechanical fixation of mandibular fractures. The ability of this system to adequately fixate fractures clinically has not been fully accepted. We analyzed our use of supplemental maxillomandibular fixation with miniplate osteosynthesis during a 5-year period, in 287 patients with 499 mandible fractures. A retrospective, matched pairing of identical fractures fixated with identical plating-schemes was carried out. Sixty-five pairs of patients undergoing intraoral monocortical plating were identified. Patients in group 1 were treated with supplemental maxillomandibular fixation after surgery, whereas patients in group 2 were treated without postoperative maxillomandibular fixation. The rate of major complications was 11% with supplemental maxillomandibular fixation and 9% without supplemental maxillomandibular fixation (p > 0.05). The total rate of complications was 17% with supplemental maxillomandibular fixation and 20% without supplemental maxillomandibular fixation (p > 0.05). No statistically significant outcome advantage could be attributed to the use of maxillomandibular fixation.

Supplemental maxillomandibular fixation with miniplate osteosynthesis

Monocortical miniplate fixation provides biomechanical fixation of mandibular fractures. The ability of this system to adequately fixate fractures clinically has not been fully accepted. We analyzed our use of supplemental maxillomandibular fixation with miniplate osteosynthesis during a 5-year period, in 287 patients with 499 mandible fractures. A retrospective, matched pairing of identical fractures fixated with identical plating schemes was carried out. Sixty-five pairs of patients undergoing intraoral monocortical plating were identified. Patients in group 1 were treated with supplemental maxillomandibular fixation after surgery, whereas patients in group 2 were treated without postoperative maxillomandibular fixation. The rate of major complications was 11% with supplemental maxillomandibular fixation and 9% without supplemental maxillomandibular fixation ( p > 0.05). The total rate of complications was 17% with supplemental maxillomandibular fixation and 20% without supplemental maxillomandibular fixation ( p > 0.05). No statistically significant outcome advantage could be attributed to the use of maxillomandibular fixation. (OTOLARYNGOL HEAD NECK SURG 1995;112:215-20.)

Skeletal stability following miniplate fixation after bilateral sagittal split osteotomy for mandibular advancement

Skeletal stability after monocortical miniplate fixation of bilateral sagittal split osteotomies to advance the mandible was evaluated in 20 patients. Three angles and four linear measurements were analyzed on lateral cephalometric radiographs before surgery, immediately after surgery, and at least 6 months after surgery. The mean horizontal advancement at pogonion was 5.0 mm; 6 months after surgery the advancement increased 0.3 mm because of occlusal settling. The mean lengthening of the distance gonion to menton was 5.8 mm and a relapse of 0.3 mm (5.2%) was found. The mean increase of anterior facial height measured at long-term follow-up was 3.6 mm. This study shows that fixation of the advanced mandible with intraorally applied monocortical miniplates after the bilateral sagittal split osteotomy is a stable procedure.

Monocortical Miniplate Fixation of Mandibular Angle Fractures

Noncompression monocortical miniplate fixation of mandibular fractures has become a reliable method of providing rigid fixation and eliminating the need for intermaxillary fixation. Recent studies, using a variety of internal fixation techniques, have described high complication rates at the mandibular angle. This article compares the use of one miniplate vs two miniplates in treatment of angle fractures. Since September 1985, 61 patients with 63 mandibular angle fractures have been treated with miniplates. Forty-four fractures were fixed with two miniplates. Six complications (3.1%) occurred, five of which were in the one-miniplate group. The complication rate in the double-miniplate group is the lowest reported of any plating technique. The use of two miniplates has proved to be an effective method of treating mandibular angle fractures.