Mandible angle fracture l.jpg
This presentation is the property of its rightful owner.
Sponsored Links
1 / 87

Mandible Angle Fracture PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 987 Views
  • Updated On :
  • Presentation posted in: General

Mandible Angle Fracture. 가천의과대학교 길병원 구강악안면외과 전 창 훈. Mandibular Angle Fracture. Pape et al (1983), Wald et al (1988) 23~42% of all mandible fracture Mandible Fracture pattern Direction and amount of force Presence of soft tissue bulk

Download Presentation

Mandible Angle Fracture

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Presentation Transcript


Mandible angle fracture l.jpg

Mandible Angle Fracture

가천의과대학교 길병원 구강악안면외과

전 창 훈


Mandibular angle fracture l.jpg

Mandibular Angle Fracture

  • Pape et al (1983), Wald et al (1988)

    • 23~42% of all mandible fracture

  • Mandible Fracture pattern

    • Direction and amount of force

    • Presence of soft tissue bulk

    • Biomechanical characteristics of the mandible (density and mass)

    • Anatomic structures creating weak area

  • Mandible angle fracture

  • Biomechanics of the mandible are associated with high incidence of postsurgical complication

    • Gerlach (1982), Kai Thu & Terhulzen (1985), Jackson et al (1986), Ikemura et al (1988), Ardary (1989), Iizuka et al (1991)

  • Iizuka (1991), Ellis (1993), Assael (1994)

    • Mandibular angle fractures are associated with the highest incidence of postsurgical infection of all mandibular fracture


Mandibular angle anatomy l.jpg

Mandibular angle anatomy

  • Mandibular angle is thinner than both body and ramus region

  • Abrupt change in shape from horizontal to vertical rami


Slide4 l.jpg

  • Michielet et al (1973)

    • Introduce the concept of miniplate placement along the external oblique ridge for the treatment of mandibular angle fractures

    • Small, easily bendable noncompression bone plates, attached with monocortical screws

  • Champy et al (1975, 1976, 1977)

    • Miniplate system : ideal line of osteosynthesis, location of stable fixation

  • Raveh et al (1987), Luhr (1986), AO/ASIF advocates (1974)

    • Not feel that the plates offer adequate stabilization of the fracture to eliminate the need for IMF


Angle fracture treatment methods l.jpg

Angle Fracture Treatment Methods

  • Closed reduction

  • Intra-oral OR & non-rigid fixation (wire fixation)

  • Extra-oral OR/IF with an AO/ASIF reconstruction bone plate

  • Intra-oral OR/IF using a solitary Lag screw

  • Intra-oral OR/IF using two 2.0 mm mini-dynamic compression plates

  • Intra-oral OR/IF using two 2.4 mm mandibular dynamic compression plates

  • Intra-oral OR/IF using two non-compression miniplates

  • Intra-oral OR/IF using a single non-compression miniplate

  • Intra-oral OR/IF using a single malleable non-compression miniplate

  • Intra-oral OR/IF using a biodegradable plate

    1999 Int.JOMS Ellis 참고인용


Closed reduction or intraoral open reduction non rigid internal fixation l.jpg

Closed reduction orIntraoral open reduction & non-rigid internal fixation

  • Less fashionable

  • Transosseous wires, circum-mandibular wires, small positional plates

  • Postsurgical IMF : 6 weeks

  • Complications ; 17%

    • 13 infections, 4 malunion & malocclusion, 3 non-union

  • High incidence of postsurgical complications


Extraoral or if using the ao asif reconstruction plate l.jpg

Extraoral OR/IF using the AO/ASIF reconstruction plate

  • AO reconstruction plate is a reinforced plate that is thicker and stronger than the standard AO/ASIF compression plate

  • 3 screws on each side of the fracture provide adequate neutralization of functional forces in the absence of compression (Schmoker et al, 1976)

  • Comminuted, bone loss or obliquity (can’t use standard compression plates)

  • 7.5% infection, 1 patient required plate remove


Lag screws l.jpg

Lag screws

  • Niederdellmann et al (1981)

    • Internal fixation using a single lag screw

  • Rapid and simple method

  • 17 / 88 patient unstable & supplemental fixation method

  • 5 patient (13%) required removal of screws and small sequestra


Intraoral or if using two 2 0 mm mini dynamic compression plates l.jpg

Intraoral OR/IF using two 2.0-mm mini-dynamic compression plates

  • Superior & inferior border of buccal cortex

    • Superior border : small compression plate with monocortical screws

    • Inferior border : large compression plate with biocortical screws

  • Extraoral approach : Not difficult

  • Intraoral approach : decreased visibility, difficult adaptation

  • 29% (9/30) complications


Intraoral or if using two 2 4mm mandibular dynamic compression plates l.jpg

Intraoral OR/IF usingtwo 2.4mm mandibular dynamic compression plates

  • Because of the high rate of postsurgical complications in patients with two 2.0-mm mini-dynamic compression plate

  • Standard AO/ASIF technique by application of two compression plates specifically designed for the mandible

  • 2.4mm screws applied monocortically in locations where bicortical engagement would damage normal anatomy

  • Postsurgical suction drainage was used in all cases

  • 32% infections


Intraoral or if using two noncompression miniplates l.jpg

Intraoral OR/IF usingtwo noncompression miniplates

  • AO/ASIF recommendation with two compression plate

    • High rates of complication

  • 2.0 mm non-compression mini-plates

    • Superior : monocortical

    • Inferior : bicortical

  • 28% (19/67) complications


Intraoral or if using one non compression miniplate l.jpg

Intraoral OR/IF using one non-compression miniplate

  • High rate of complication : two plate

  • Champy et al (1978) : one miniplate

  • Single 4-hole miniplate and monocortical screws

  • 2~4mm gap at the inferior border

  • 16% complications, but minor and can treated in the outpatient


Intraoral or if using one malleable non compression miniplate l.jpg

Intraoral OR/IF usingone malleable non-compression miniplate

  • Lodde (1995)

    • Reduced the volume of the original champy miniplate by half

    • Not increased in complications

  • Thin, malleable miniplate (7 hole) & 1.3 mm screws (5mm)

  • 13.7 % complications : 8.7 % further surgical intervention

    • 3/7 Asymptomatic plate fracture, but bony union state

    • 2/7 plate fracture : mobility, 6 weeks IMF


Slide14 l.jpg

  • Luhr & Hausmann (1996)

    • 0.9% rate of complication in 352 patients treated by compression plates for angle fracture

  • Ellis & Sinn (1993)

    • 32% rate of complication in 65 patients treated with compression plates for angle fracture

  • Iizuka & Lindqvist (1993)

    • 6.6% rate of infection and 14% rate of malocclusion for 121 angle fx


Slide15 l.jpg

  • Angle fracture complication rate가 다양한 이유 (Ellis, 1999)

    • Angle fracture에 국한된 complication 연구가 부족하다

    • Very different treatment

    • Vary in the etiology of the injury

    • Routine plate remove


Slide16 l.jpg

  • Luhr (1982)

    • Large bone plates (usually with compression) fastened with bicortical bone screws to provide rigidity


Ao asif plate l.jpg

AO/ASIF plate

  • Plate and screw fixation should provide sufficient rigidity to the fragments to prevent interfragmentary mobility during active use of the mandible


2 miniplates l.jpg

2 Miniplates

  • Levy (1991)

    • 2 miniplate : 3.1% complication ( superior buccal cortex, 2nd 6-hole)

    • Single miniplate : 20 % complication

    • 2 miniplate plus postsurgical IMF :

      • higher complication (7.1%) than no IMF

  • Vallenntinpo 1994

  • Choi (1995)

    • Separation of the fracture line and lateral displacement of the proximal fragment at the lower mandibular margin

    • 2nd plate : inferior border

  • Severely disturbed biological surrounding (need for more rigid fixation)

    • Old, comminuted, infected or severely dislocated fracture

    • Edentulous mandible or with atypical tension/pressure forces due to poor dentition or pathological occlusion


1 miniplate l.jpg

1 Miniplate

  • Champy et al (1976)

    • One plate at the superior border of the mandible ventral to the external oblique line

  • Choi et al (1995)

  • Ellis (1999)

  • Shierle et al (1997)

  • Low complication rates with monocortical miniplate fixation

    • Michelet et al, 1973

    • Champy et al, 1978

    • Gerlach et al, 1983


Bio resorbable plate l.jpg

Bio resorbable plate

  • Synthetic bioabsorbable materials : 30 years

  • Cutright and Hunsuck (1972)

    • Orbital floor fracture : use of resorbable materials

  • Bos (1989)

    • Attempted by using poly-L-lactide acid monomers : successful rate

    • But, rapid decline in tensile strength : 1 week

  • Eppley (1996)

    • Polyglycolic acid materials

    • 50% loss of original strength in the 2 week after placement

    • Total loss of the strength and consistency after 6 weeks

  • Combination of the 2 materials in varying ratio

  • Lorenz Lactosorb system

    • PLLA and PGA

    • Allow 70% of the initial strength to be retained during the first 6-8 weeks


Ao asif principle l.jpg

AO/ASIF principle

  • Anatomic reduction

  • Rigid fixation

  • Atraumatic surgical technique

  • Immediate active function

  • 1994, AO/ASIF

    • Change second principle : “ functionally stable fixation ”

  • Single miniplate

    • “ neutralize ” functional forces


Bite force biomechanism l.jpg

Bite force & Biomechanism


3rd molar l.jpg

3rd molar


Mandible fracture l.jpg

Mandible Fracture %

  • 하악골 골절 중 차지하는 비율, 성, 나이, 직업, 외상 방법? 위치

  • 수술까지 경과시간, MMF 기간, 입원기간, 합병증

  • 수술 접근 방법, 마취방법, 재수술여부

  • 흡수성, 비흡수성, 제3대구치 잔존, 발거, 고정술 방법

  • 환자의 만족도(교합), 개구장애? 저작력변화

  • Question

    • Fractuer stability vs Infections


Complications l.jpg

Complications

  • Champy et al (1978)

    • The combination of the forces of elevator muscles and occlusal forces results in a natural band of tension along the superior border in the angle region


Slide27 l.jpg

Outcomes of Patients With Teeth in the Line of Mandibular Angle Fractures Treated With Stable Internal FixationJOMS 2002 60:863-865Ellis

  • 결과

    • 골절선에 치아 존재 : 85% (345/402)

    • 수술 동안 치아의 제거 : 75% (258/345)

    • 술후 감염 : 19% (75/402) 평균시간 : 8.1 weeks

    • P/R : 19% (75/402)

    • 치아와 관련없는 우각부 골절 감염율 : 15.8%

    • 치아와 관련된 우각부 골절 감염율 : 19.1%

      • 치아를 잔존시킨 경우 : 19.5%

      • 치아를 제거한 경우 : 19.0%

    • 치아와 관련없는 우각부 골절 P/R : 17.5%

    • 치아와 관련된 우각부 골절 P/R : 18.8%

      • 치아를 잔존시킨 경우 : 19.5%

      • 치아를 제거한 경우 : 18.6%

  • 결론

    • 치아가 골절선에 존재하면 술후 합병증 위험이 증가하지만, 유의성은 없다. 술후 감염은 치아의 발거에 대한 문제와 연관이 없다.


Slide28 l.jpg

Outcomes of Patients With Teeth in the Line of Mandibular Angle Fractures Treated With Stable Internal FixationJOMS 2002 60:863-865Ellis

  • Angle fracture에서 술후 complication이 높은 이유

    • Method of treatment

    • The time between injury and treatment

    • The oral health of the patient

    • Presence or absence of a tooth in the fracture line

  • The criteria of tooth extraction (Methods)

    • Fractured teeth

    • Pericoronal / periodontal infection

    • Gross caries

    • Tooth mobility

    • Exposure of the apical half or more of the root (including the apex)

    • Inability to reduce the fracture without tooth removal

  • Muller (1964)

    • Multirooted teeth (ie, molars) be removed

  • James et al (1981)

    • 4+ mobility, root fracture, apical pathology, not necessary for stability (39%)

  • Kahnberg and Ridell (1979)

    • 59% teeth left : clinical and radiographic sucess


Slide29 l.jpg

Do mandibular Third Molars Alter the Risk of Angle Fracture?Fuselier, Ellis, Dodson JOMS 2002 60:514-518

  • Results & Conclusions

    • Study sample : 1,210 patients

    • Patients with M3 : 2.1 times chance of angle fracture

    • Angulation & occlusal position of M3 : mesioangulation

    • Intact superior border : structural stability of the angle region

    • Does the removal of M3 “strength” the mandible or does it remain “weak” ?

  • Angle fracture incidence

    • Vector of force

    • Amout of force

    • Musculatrue of the face

    • Architecture of the mandible

    • M3 presence or absence


Slide30 l.jpg

Results

M3를 가진 426명 중 127명이 우각부 골절 (29.8%)

M3가 없는 189명 중 25명이 우각부 골절(13.2%)

Conclusions

Mandibular angle that contain an impacted M3 is more susceptible to fracture

Is the mandibular third molar a risk factor for mandibular angle fracture?Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 2000 89:143-6Ma’aita, Alwrikat

M3 position & angle fx risk

M3 & angle fx


Slide31 l.jpg

Is the mandibular third molar a risk factor for mandibular angle fracture?Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 2000 89:143-6

  • Mandible

    • The strongest and most rigid component of the skeleton

    • But, more commonly fractured than the other bones of the face

  • Ellis (1985)

    • Mandibulr angle fracture : 30% of the mandibular fractures

  • Wolujewicz (1980)

    • No relationship between the state of eruption of M3 and angle fracture

  • Tevepaugh and Dodson (1995)

    • 3.8 times more fracture with M3

  • Halazonetis (1968), Amartunga (1988)

    • Twice occur in dentate patients compared with edentate patients

  • Reitzik (1978)

    • Unerupted M3 angle will fracture with only 60% of the force necessary to fracture the angle when the M3 is erupted


Slide32 l.jpg

The Effect of Mandibular Third Molar Presence and Position on the Risk of an Angle FractureLee, DodsonJOMS 2000 58:394-398

  • Purpose

    • Assessment of the relationship between M3 and angle fractures

  • Patients and Methods

    • M3 position : 9 categories (Pell and Gregory classification)

  • Results

    • Patient with M3 had a 1.9 times greater chance of an angle fx

  • Conclusions

    • M3 present have an increased risk for angle fractures (1.9 times)

    • M3 position is only one important risk factor


Slide33 l.jpg

The Effect of Mandibular Third Molar Presence and Position on the Risk of an Angle FractureLee, DodsonJOMS 2000 58:394-398

  • Mandibular fracture patterns

    • Direction and amount of force

    • Presence of soft tissue bulk

    • Biomechanical characteristics of the mandible (bone density and mass)

    • Anatomic structures creating weak areas

  • Reitzik et al (1978)

    • Mandible with unerupted M3s required 40% less force to be fractured than mandible with fully erupted M3

  • Hypothesis

    • Presence of M3s decreases bone mass, thereby increasing the risk of fx

    • Deeper impactions increasing the risk of fracture

  • Huelke et al (1961,1962,1964)

    • Fracture occur more frequently in dentate than in edentulous

  • Tevepaugh & Dodson (1995)

    • Fail to confirm a relationship between M3 position and fracture


Slide34 l.jpg

The Effect of Mandibular Third Molar Presence and Position on the Risk of an Angle FractureLee, DodsonJOMS 2000 58:394-398

  • Deepest impacted M3s

    • 50% decrease in angle fracture risk

  • Other factors (Nahum 1975)

    • Soft tissue character

    • Remaining dentition state

  • Weiss (1965)

    • Angle region was more prone to fracture in partially or fully edentulous mandibles than in dentulous ones

  • Tams et al (1996)

    • Biomechanical property of the mandible during angle fractures

      • Greatest amount of positive bending moment

      • Small amount of torsion

      • Greatest amount of shear force

  • John et al

    • M3 ext or not ? Condyle fx


Slide35 l.jpg

An investigation into the relationship between mandibular third molars and angle fractures in NigeriansUgboko British JOMS 2000 38:427-429

  • Results

    • 65/408 with M3 (16%) vs 11/82 without M3 (13%)

    • Unerupted 24/77 (31%) vs erupted 52/331 (16%)

  • Conclusions

    • M3 does not necessarily predispose to fractures of the mandibular angle

    • But, angle fractures are more likely to occur with unerupted M3 than erupted M3

  • Marker et al (1994)

    • Closed reduction with retention of M3 within the line of fracture carries less morbidity than rigid fixation and immediate jaw mobility


Slide36 l.jpg

Are Mandibular Third Molars a Risk Factor for Angle Fractures? : A Retrospective Cohort StudyTevepaugh & Dodson JOMS 1995 53:646-649

  • Results

    • 73 patient with M3, 30 angle fracture (41.1%)

    • 28 patient without M3, 3 angle fracture (10.7%)

  • Conclusions

    • Patient with M3 were 3.8 times more liable to develop angle fractures than those without M3

    • The decreased cross-sectional area of bone associated with M3 weakens the angle

    • The position of the M3 does not affect the site

    • People at risk may benefit from pre-emptive removal of the M3


Slide37 l.jpg

Relationship between fractures of the mandibular angle and the presence and state of eruption of the lower third molarSafdar, BMedSci, Meechan Oral Surg 1995;79:680-684

  • Results

    • Significantly greater when unerupted M3 were present

    • Bilateral unerupted M3 predisposed to a fracture at the angle significantly more than unilateral unerupted M3

    • Peterson (1991)

      • Prophylactic extraction of unerupted M3 : sports


Slide38 l.jpg

Incompletely erupted third molars in the line of mandibular fractures ; A retrospective analysis of 57 casesMarker, Eckerdal et alOral Surg 1994;78:426-31


Slide40 l.jpg

Clinician variablility in characterizing mandible fracturesShetty, Atchison, Belin, WangJOMS 59;254-261, 2001


Slide41 l.jpg

A Biomechanical Evaluation of Mandibular Angle Fracture Plating TechniquesHaug et alJOMS 2001 59:1199-1210

  • Purpose

    • Evaluate the biomechanical behavior of a vast array of fixation philosophies and technique

  • Materials and Methods

    • 150 polyurethane synthetic mandible replicas

    • Five controls and 5 each of 14 different fixation

    • Vertical loading at the incisal edge & contralateral loading in the molar region

      • Lag screw technique

      • Monocortical superior border plating with varying size of plates & screws

      • Monocortical 2-plate technique with varying forms of fixation

      • Monocortical tension band systems with associated bicortical stabilization plates of various types

      • Various forms of reconstruction plates

  • Conclusions

    • Incisal edge loading : all systems met or exceeded postoperative function

    • Contralateral molar loading : fail


Slide42 l.jpg

A Biomechanical Evaluation of Mandibular Angle Fracture Plating TechniquesHaug et alJOMS 2001 59:1199-1210

  • Dramatic differences in outcomes

    • Individual host factors

    • Variations in the biology of fracture healing and/or surgical technique

    • Biomechanical influences of the particular fixation systems

  • Ellis et al (1994, 1996)

    • Bite forces in the acute post-OP period are much less than later post-OP period or nonoperated population

  • Kroon et al (1991)

    • Different loaded torsions could displace a reconstructed fracture

  • Shetty et al

    • Adaptive systems fared less favorably than the compressive systems


Slide43 l.jpg

Technique for Applying 2 Miniplates for Treatment of Mandibular Angle FracturesChoi et alJOMS 2001 59:353-354

  • Champy method (1978)

    • Separation of the fracture line & lateral displacement of the fragment

    • Posterior open bite on the fracture side

    • MMF ; intraoperative and postoperative

  • 2-miniplate fixation

    • Superior border & inferior border of the mandible

    • Using reduction forcep : superior border fixation

    • Mouth prop on the contralateral molars : inferior border fixation with trocar

    • Advantage

      • No MMF : no posterior open bite

      • Excellent adaptation and good stability at the fracture site

  • Ellis et al (1992)

    • Unacceptably high rate of complications using 2 miniplates


Slide44 l.jpg

Mandibular fractures in Townsville, Australia: incidence, aetioology and treatment using the 2.0 AO/ASIF miniplate systemSchon et alBritish JOMS 2001, 39:145-148

  • Summary

    • 1995, 114 patient, 154 mandible fracture

    • 124 fracture (81%) : male, 30 fracture (19%) : female

    • Fight (83%), TA(10%), Falls(3%), Falling objects(3%), sport(2%)

    • Mn angle (43%), symphysis (26%), combine fracture (30%)

    • With M3 : 97%

    • 105 patient : 2.0 AO/ASIF titanium miniplates

    • Complication

      • Temporary sensory deficit (3%)

      • Minor malocclusion (2%)

      • Infection or dehiscence(5%)

    • Conclusion : 2.0 AO/ASIF miniplate system is reliable


Slide45 l.jpg

An effective technique for open reduction of mandibualr angle fractures using new reduction forceps: technical innovationsChoi et alInt JOMS 2001, 30:555-557

  • 우각부에 reduction forcep을 적용하기 힘들기 때문에 술후 complication 높을 수 있다.

  • Precompressing fractures는 골 접촉면적을 증가시켜서 stability와 healing에 도움이 된다.

  • 1 hole ; proximal fragment medial to the oblique line

  • 2 hole ; distal fragment below the oblique line

  • But, oblique surface fractures : not advised

    • Cause fragment overriding


Slide46 l.jpg

Treatment of Mandibular Angle Fractures with a Malleable Noncompression MiniplatePotter & EllisJOMS 1999 57:288-292

  • Purpose

    • Single, thin, malleable miniplate로 우각부 골절 치료를 평가

  • Patients and Methods

    • 51 fracture : OR/IF using one noncompression, thin, malleable miniplate and 1.3mm self-threading screws

    • No postsurgical MMF

  • Results

    • 7 (15.2%) complication

      • 3 asymptomatic bone plate fracture : already heal, no treatment

      • 2 bone plate fracture : fracture mobility, requir MMF

      • 3 infection : I & D

  • Conclusions

    • Small one bone plate for angle fractures provided adequate fixation

    • But, unacceptable rate of plate fracture, the plate cannot be recommended for routine


Slide47 l.jpg

Treatment of Mandibular Angle Fractures with a Malleable Noncompression MiniplatePotter & EllisJOMS 1999 57:288-292

  • Single, 2mm miniplate was much fewer complication than 2 plates

  • Lodde (1995)

    • Reduced the volume of the original Champy miniplate by half

      • Not increased in complication

  • Seven-hole noncompression titanium miniplate

    • Six 5mm long, 1.3mm diameter self-threading screws

    • Unnecessary to bend

  • Rigid fixation

    • Forming a stronger bone

    • Little or no MMF

    • Earlier physical rehabilitation & function

  • Fracture healing factors

    • Minimum disruption of the periosteum and improve vascularity

    • Inadequate cooling of bur (bicortical)

    • Direction of the fracture line

    • Posterior molar occlusion


Treatment methods for fractures of the mandibular angle ellis int joms 1999 28 243 252 l.jpg

Treatment methods for fractures of the mandibular angleEllisInt JOMS 1999, 28:243-252

  • Angle fracture가 빈번히 발생하는 원인

    • The presence of third molars

    • A thinner cross-sectional area than the tooth-bearing region

    • Biomechanically the angle can be considered a “lever” area

  • Treatment methods : 앞 slide에 정리 함

    • Most useful : AO/ASIF or single miniplate


Treatment methods for fractures of the mandibular angle ellis int joms 1999 28 243 25249 l.jpg

Treatment methods for fractures of the mandibular angleEllisInt JOMS 1999, 28:243-252

  • Discussion

    • No recommend an intraoral two-plate technique

      • High rate of sequestra formation, infection and need for subsequent surgery

    • Two point fixation was much higher than one point fixation

    • Single miniplate fixation

      • Complication was easily treated in the outpatient clinic under local anesthesia

      • Plate remove was simple

    • Shierle et al (1997)

      • One- or two- plate : no significant difference in results


Slide50 l.jpg

Biomechanical evaluation of new fixation devices for mandibular angle fracturesWittenberg et alInt JOMS 1997, 26:68-73

  • Mandible angle fractures : 23~42% of all mandible fractures


Slide51 l.jpg

One- or two-plate fixation of mandibular angle fractures?Schierle, Schmelzeisen, Rahn, PytlikJ.CMS 1997, 25:162-168

  • Summary

    • No significant difference

    • Two plate fixation may not offer advantages over single plate fixation in general

    • 2 plates : more rigid fixation


Slide52 l.jpg

Photoelastic analysis of miniplate osteosynthesis for mandibular angle fracturesRudman et al Oral Surg 1997, 84:129-36


Slide53 l.jpg

Relative displacement resistance of standard and low-profile bone plates in experimental mandibular angle fracturesNissenbaumOral Surg 1997, 83:427-32

  • 우리는 멀 쓰고 있나? 몇 mm 두께인가?


A comparison of mandibular angle fracture plating techniques haug et al oral surg 1996 82 257 263 l.jpg

A comparison of mandibular angle fracture plating techniquesHaug et alOral Surg 1996, 82:257-263

  • Under the conditions described in this in vitro investigation, plate thickeness or pattern made no difference

  • All failures in this experiment occurred with monocortical screws in the superior border tension band system


Slide55 l.jpg

Treatment of Mandibular Angle Fractures Using One Noncompression MiniplateEllis et alJOMS 1996 54:864-871

  • Purpose

    • Single miniplate를 하악 우각부 골절에 사용

  • Patients and Methods

    • 81 patients: OR/IF using one noncompression miniplate with 2.0mm self-threading screws, No MMF postsurgically

  • Results

    • 13 patients (16%): complication

    • 2 complication : hospitalization for IV antibiotics and further surgery

      • Fibrous union : bone graft

  • Conclusions

    • Single miniplate is a simple, reliable technique


Slide56 l.jpg

Treatment of Mandibular Angle Fractures Using One Noncompression MiniplateEllis et alJOMS 1996 54:864-871

  • Champy et al (1978)

    • 3.8% infection : all mandible fracture

  • Cawood (1985)

    • 50 miniplate fixation Vs 50 wire fixation with 6 weeks MMF

      • Malocclusion (8% vs 4%)

      • Infection (6% vs 4%)

      • Dehiscence (12% vs 6%)

      • 42 mm (4 weeks) vs 34 mm (15 weeks)

    • 27 miniplate fixation on angle fracture

      • Dehiscence (11%)

      • Malocclusion (3.7%)

      • Infection (3.7%)

  • Ellis (1993)

    • AO reconstruction bone plate through extraoral approach : 7.5% complication

    • But, increased OP time & facial nerve damage, hypertrophic scar


Slide57 l.jpg

Treatment of Mandibular Angle Fractures Using One Noncompression MiniplateEllis et alJOMS 1996 54:864-871

  • Single miniplate : fewest major complication

    • Gap along the inferior border in the immediate postoperative

    • 6 week radiograph ; gap completely closed in all cases

  • Karasz et al (1986), Champy (1976)

    • Single miniplate offers more resistance to vertical bending force

  • Kroon et al (1991), Shetty et al (1995)

    • Neither bending nor torsional forces were susfficiently controlled by single miniplate fixation

  • Choi et al (1995)

    • 2 miniplates provide much greater stability than a single miniplate

  • Levy et al (1991)

    • 1 or 2 miniplate without MMF : single (20%,2/10) double (0%) complication

    • 2 miniplate plus MMF (14 patient) : 7.1%

  • Ellis (1994) : 2 miniplate : 29%

  • Haug (1993) : 4 mm screws were as effective as longer lengths


Slide58 l.jpg

Treatment of Mandibular Angle Fractures Using One Noncompression MiniplateEllis et alJOMS 1996 54:864-871

  • MMF

    • Immobilization of the mandible until the soft tissue incision has healed

    • Postsurgical “settle” the occlusal relationship

  • Surgery time

    • Champy (1978) : using no preoperative antibiotics, within 12 hours

    • Cawood (1985) : within 24 hours

    • Ellis, Smith, Barnard, Hook, Tuovinen : no difference in complication rate

  • Infected fractures

    • Champy (1978) : no miniplate use

    • Becker (1979), Tu and Tenhulzen (1985), Johansson (1988), Koury and Ellis (1992), Koury (1994) : successful treatment

    • Johansson et al (1988) : 42 infected mandible fracture with miniplate

      • Good healing : 28 patient (76%)

      • Preoperative infection persist : 9 patient (24%)

      • P/R and MMF for 6-8 weeks : 3 patient

      • Uncomplicated healing & bone graft : 2 patient


Slide59 l.jpg

Lag-screw fixation of mandibular parasymphyseal and angle fracturesKallela, Ilzuka et alOral Surg 1996, 81:510-516

  • Advantages

    • Less implant material should be needed

    • Cost should be lower

    • Technique should be simple (no need to bend plates)

    • Surgical exposure should be limited

  • Complications

    • 9%, 14%

    • Niederdellman and Shetty (1987) : 4% complication

    • Ellis and Ghali (1991) : 13%

    • Assaell (1993) : high incidence of technique-related failures


Slide60 l.jpg

Stability testing of a two miniplate fixation technique for mandibular angle fractures.An in vitro studyChoi et al J. Cranio Maxillofac Surg 1995 23:122-125

  • Champy et al (1975)

    • Miniplate and monocortical screws fixation

    • Minimal facial scar, easy adaptation, short operation time, facial & inferior alveolar nerve damage decrease

  • Raveh and colleagues (1987) and AO/ASIF advocates (1983)

    • Do not offers susfficient stabilization without IMF

  • Kroon (1991)

    • Loading force close to the fracture line : gaping at lower border

  • Frost et al (1991), Ellis and Karas (1992)

    • Two miniplate fixation : external oblique line + inferior border

  • Two miniplate technique provided a significantly higher resistance to the loading force close to the fracture line

  • Luhr (1972), Niederdellman and Schilli (1973)

    • Eccentric dynamic compression plate (EDCP)

    • Used without superior border stabilization (but, frequently recommand)


Slide61 l.jpg

Fracture Line Stability as a Function of the Internal Fixation System : An In Vitro Comparison Using a Mandibular Angle Fracture ModelVivek Shetty et al 1995 JOMS 53:791-801

  • Compressive systems

    • Eccentric dynamic compression plate

    • Wurzburg plate

    • Luhr plate

    • Solitary lag screw technique

  • Adaptive fixation systems

    • Champy miniplate

    • Mennen clamp plate

  • Conclusions

    • Compressive fixation systems are biomechanically superior to adaptive systems

    • And provide good immediate function stability to reduced mandibular angle fractures


Slide62 l.jpg

Modified Technique for Adapting a Mandibular Angle Superior Border PlateGerard 1995 JOMS 53:220-221


Slide63 l.jpg

A Microplate and Screw Technique for Intraoral Open Reduction of Mandibular Angle FracturesHaug 1995 JOMS 53:218-219

  • Wire fixation

    • Surgical access limits the placement of holes in the superior border

    • Inferior alveolar nerve paresthesia

    • Lingual nerver damage : dissection

    • Adjacent teeth root damage

    • Difficult to tightening of wire knot

    • Wire knot occasionally eroded through the mucosa

    • Often break just prior to the last twist

  • Microplate & screw technique

    • Trapezoidal flap

    • Microscrews : 4.0~5.0 mm in length, monocortical

    • 6 weeks MMF

  • Titanium

    • More cost


Slide64 l.jpg

Clinical and in vitro evaluation of mandibular angle fracture fixation with the two-miniplate systemChoi et alOral Surg 1995, 79:692-5


Treatment of mandibular angle fracture plate and screw fixation assael 1994 joms 52 757 761 l.jpg

Treatment of Mandibular Angle Fracture:Plate and Screw FixationAssael 1994 JOMS 52:757-761


Slide66 l.jpg

Treatment of Mandibular Angle Fractures Using Two Noncompression MiniplatesEllis 1994 JOMS 52:1032-1036

  • Materials and Methods

    • 4-hole noncompression miniplates with 2.0mm screws

    • Superior plate : monocortical

    • Inferior plate : bicortical

    • No MMF

  • Results

    • 19 / 67 patient : 28% complication

    • Postoperative infection requiring surgical drainage ( n = 17 )

    • < 6 weeks : 47%

    • 6-10 weeks : 24%

    • > 10 weeks : 29%

  • Conclusions

    • 2 noncompression miniplate was easy, but resulted in an unacceptable rate of infection


Slide67 l.jpg

Treatment of Mandibular Angle Fractures Using Two Noncompression MiniplatesEllis 1994 JOMS 52:1032-1036

  • Passeri and Ellis (1993)

    • Traditional treatment method : 17% complication

  • Ellis (1993)

    • AO reconstruction bone plate through an extraoral approach : 7.5% complication

  • AO/ASIF (1989)

    • Two compression bone plate recommend

  • Ellis (1992)

    • Two minidynamic compression plates with 2.0mm screws : 29% complication

  • Ellis (1993)

    • Stronger dynamic compression plates using 2.4mm screws : 32% complication


Slide68 l.jpg

Treatment of Mandibular Angle Fractures Using Two Noncompression MiniplatesEllis 1994 JOMS 52:1032-1036

  • Infection factors

    • Intraoral approach : higher bacterial exposure

    • Traumatic disruption

    • Surgical disruption

    • Teeth in the fracture line : removal vs leaving

    • Compression or noncompression

    • Patient status : nutrition, compliance, oral hygiene, substance abuse

      • IV drug user : 30 % complication

      • Chronic non-IV drug user and alcoholics : 19 and 15.5%

      • No abuse substance : 6 %


Slide69 l.jpg

Treatment of Mandibular Angle Fractures:Transoral Internal Wire FixationMarciani, Anderson, Gonty 1994 JOMS 52:752-756

  • Kazanjian (1933) : preantibiotic era

    • Transoral open reduction

  • Antibiotic : extraoral open reductionn

  • Shira (1954)

    • Intraoral approach for mandibular angle fracture involving a tooth in the line of fracture

  • Hooley (1969)

    • Intraoral inferior border wiring ; postoperative mental nerve anesthesia

  • Sazima et al (1971)

    • “Transoral open reduction” using transosseous wiring

  • Champy et al (1978)

    • Miniature screw and plate, monocortical

  • Complication rate 17%


Slide70 l.jpg

Bite Forces in Patients Treated for Mandibular Angle Fractures: Implications for Fixation RecommendationsTate, Ellis 1994 JOMS 52:734-736

  • Methods

    • Healthy adult male : 50 kilopounds

    • OR/IF using 2 miniplates inserted by a transoral approach

    • No MMF

  • Results

    • Incisor bite force : no significant difference

    • Molar bite forces

      • statistically significant reduction in bite force (6 week)

  • Possible reasons

    • Protective neuromuscular mechanisms

    • Traumatic and surgical damage to the masseter and temporalis muscles

    • Transfacial trochar : masseter muscle damage

  • Conclusions

    • Amount of fixation required for given fracture may be reduced


Slide71 l.jpg

Rigid internal fixation of fractures in the angular region of the mandible: An analysis of factors contributing to different complicationsIizuka, LindqvistPRS 1993, 91:265


Slide72 l.jpg

Treatment of mandibular angle fractures using the AO reconstruction plateEllisJOMS 1993, 51:250-254


Slide73 l.jpg

Complications of nonrigid fixation of mandibular angle fracturesPasseri, Ellis, SinnJOMS 1993, 51:382-384


Slide74 l.jpg

Treatment of mandibular angle fractures using two 2.4-mm dynamic compression platesEllisJOMS 1993, 51:969-973


Slide75 l.jpg

Treatment of mandibular angle fractures using two mini dynamic compression platesEllisJOMS 1992, 50:958-963


Slide76 l.jpg

Biomechanical validation of the solitary lag screw technique for reducing madibular angle fracturesShetty & CaputoJOMS 1992, 50:603-607


Slide77 l.jpg

Single oblique lag screw fixation of mandibular angle fracturesFarris, Dierkslaryngoscope 1992, 102:1070-1072


Slide78 l.jpg

Screw-wire osteosynthesis technique for intraoral open reduction of mandibular angle fracturesDym, Coro, OgleJOMS 1992, 50:1247-1248


Lag screw fixation of mandibular angle fractures ellis joms 1991 49 234 243 l.jpg

Lag screw fixation of mandibular angle fracturesEllisJOMS 1991, 49:234-243


Slide81 l.jpg

A Computer Study of Biodegradable Plates for Internal Fixation of Mandibular Angle FracturesTams, Loon, Otten, BosJOMS 2001 59:404-407

  • Purpose

    • Suitability of small biodegradable plate systems

  • Materials & Methods

    • 2 polylactide(PLA) midiplates

    • 2 PLA maxiplates

    • 1st fixation : external oblique ridge의 buccal

    • 2nd fixation

      • Halfway up the height of the mandible

      • Lower border

  • Results

    • PLA maxiplates on halfway up the height : bite force tolerable

    • But, yield strain of PLA was not exceeded in any strategies

  • Conclusions

    • 2 PLA maxiplates

    • External oblique ridge & halfway up the height of the mandible


Slide82 l.jpg

A Computer Study of Biodegradable Plates for Internal Fixation of Mandibular Angle FracturesTams et al.JOMS 2001 59:404-407

  • Large PLA plates & screws (Rozema 1992, Bergsma 1995)

    • Unacceptable long degradation period

    • Risk of late degradation complications

  • The dimensions of the PLA plate

  • 1 PLA midi- or maxiplate fixation on angle : fracture mobility (+)

  • Angle fracture (Tams 1996, 1997)

    • Bite forces : high bending moments, low torsion moments, high shear forces

    • Negative bending moments ≪ Positive bending moments


Slide83 l.jpg

The Efficacy of Bioresorbable Fixation in the Repair of Mandibular Fractures: An Animal StudyQuereshy et alJOMS 2000 58:1263-1269

  • Purpose

    • Analyze and compare bioresorbable fixation with titanium system

  • Materials and Methods

    • Iatrogenic left mandibular angle fracture & OR/IF

      • Bioresorbable fixation

      • Titanium fixation

    • Allow function immediately

  • Conclusions

    • Bioresorbable fixation system is effective in the treatment of mandibular angle fractures in a dog model


Slide84 l.jpg

The Efficacy of Bioresorbable Fixation in the Repair of Mandibular Fractures: An Animal StudyQuereshy et alJOMS 2000 58:1263-1269

  • Bone plates

    • Biocompatible and strength

    • Several potential postoperative problems

      • Visibility or palpability

      • Hardware loosening with resulting extrusion

      • Temperature sensitivity to cold

      • Screw migration and maxillary sinusitis

      • Bone atropy or osteopenia caused by stress shielding & corrosion

      • Interference with radiographic imaging and radiation therapy

      • Allergic reactions

      • Intracranial migration in cranio-orbital surgery

      • Possibility of causing growth restriction of the craniofacial skeleton in pediatric patients


Slide85 l.jpg

A computer study of fracture mobility and strain on biodegradable plates used for fixation of mandibular fracturesTams et alJOMS 1999, 57:973-981


Case report l.jpg

CASE REPORT

1997~2002


Slide87 l.jpg

  • 1997 ~ 2002

  • 110 Patient

  • 21 명이 추적관찰기간이 4주 미만

  • 1 명이 전신질환으로 closed reduction

  • 평균연령 ; 26.7 세 (

  • 남자 85명, 여자 25명

  • 좌측 69명, 우측 41명

  • Isolated fx 56 명, combine fx 54 명 (condyle head 1명)

  • Without M3 6명, with M3 104명

  • 비발치 85명, 발치 19명

  • 수상후 수술까지 평균 6일 소요 (1일~19일)

  • 입원후 수술까지 평균 4일 소요 (1일~19일)

  • 수술후 퇴원까지 평균 7.26일 소요(2일~18일)

  • 4주이상 추적관찰환자의 평균 기간은 7개월(1개월~45개월)

  • 1달 이상 추적 관찰 환자 88명중 54명 고정판제거

  • 5.7개월 소요


  • Login