EVALUATION OF RHOMBIC THREE DIMENSIONAL PLATE IN TREATMENT OF MANDIBULAR SUBCONDYLAR FRACTURES IN ADULT PATIENTS FROM ALEXANDRIA | ||||
| Alexandria Dental Journal | ||||
| Article 9, Volume 42, Issue 1, April 2017, Page 56-61 PDF (1003.81 K) | ||||
| Document Type: Original Article | ||||
| DOI: 10.21608/adjalexu.2017.57857 | ||||
 View on SCiNiTO | ||||
| Authors | ||||
| Gaafar N. El Halawani* 1; Sherif S. Ayad2; Sameh A. Darwish2; Ragab S. Hassan2 | ||||
| 1Assistant lecturer at Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery Department, Faculty of Dentistry, Alexandria University | ||||
| 2Professor of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Faculty of Dentistry, Alexandria University. | ||||
| Abstract | ||||
| INTRODUCTION: Open reduction–internal fixation (ORIF) of extracapsular condylar fracture is necessary when there is a displacement of 10–45◦, or a shortening of the ramus by more than 2 mm. The two miniplates is considered the gold standard in fixation of condylar fractures. however, it needs a certain size of the proximal segment restricting its use to low condylar neck fracture. Recently a 3D rhombic plate was introduced, which can be used with high condylar neck fracture, while still providing good anatomical positioning and stability. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate both clinically and radiographically the three dimensional rhombic plate compared with the two miniplates in the fixation of mandibular subcondylar fractures. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This prospective clinical study was performed on 20 patients with extracapsular condyle fractures. Patients were divided into 2 groups. Group I was treated with the three dimensional rhombic plate and group II was treated with two miniplates. RESULTS:There was a significant difference in the maximal mouth opening between the two groups at 3 months postoperatively in favor of the study group, however there was no significant difference in mandibular mobility throughout the follow up period.20% of patients from group (I) and 30% of patients from group (II) had lateral deviation in mouth opening on the first week.This was absent in both groups on the third week postoperatively.The difference between the two groups was not statistically significant one week. The mean bone density in the study group was statistically significantly higher than the control group at 3 and 6 months postoperatively. CONCLUSIONS:The application of the Rhombic plate for the stable osteosynthesis of condylar fractures ensures satisfactory treatment results, both from the clinical and the radiological points of view | ||||
| Keywords | ||||
| Subcondylar fracture; Rhombic plate; Three dimensional plates | ||||
| References | ||||
|
1. Gassner R, TuliT, Hachl O, Rudisch A, Ulmer H. Craniomaxillofacial trauma: a 10-year review of 9543 cases with 21067 injuries. J Craniomaxillofac Surg.2003; 31: 51-61.
2. Kommers SC, van den Bergh B, Forouzanfar T. Quality of life after open versus closed treatment for mandibular condyle fractures: a review of literature. J Craniomaxillofac Surg 2013; 41: 221-5.
3. Danda AK, Muthusekhar MR, Narayanan V, Baig MF, Siddareddi A. Open versus closed treatment of unilateral subcondylar and condylar neck fractures: a prospective, randomized clinical study. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2010; 68:1238-41.
4. Shiju M, Rastogi S, Gupta P, Kukreja S, Thomas R, Bhugra AK, et al. Fractures of the mandibular condyle - Open versus closed - A treatment dilemma. J Craniomaxillofac Surg. 2015; 43: 448-51.
5. Schneider M, Erasmus F, Gerlach KL, Kuhlisch E, Loukota RA, Rasse M, et al. Open reduction and internal fixation versus closed treatment and mandibulomaxillary fixation of fractures of the mandibular condylar process: a randomized, prospective, multicenter study with special evaluation of fracture level. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2008; 66: 2537– 44.
6. Hakim SG, Wolf M, Wendlandt R, Kimmerle H, Sieg P, Jacobsen HC. Comparative biomechanical study on three miniplates osteosynthesis systems for stabilization of low condylar fractures of the mandible. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2014; 52: 317-22.
7. Ebenezer V, Ranalingam B. Comparison of approaches for the rigid fixation ofsubcondylar fractures. J Maxillofac Oral Surg 2011;10: 38–44.
8. Ducic Y. Endoscopic treatment of subcondylar fractures. Laryngoscope 2008; 118: 1164–7.
9. Ellis E III, Kellman RM, Vural E. Subcondylar fractures. Facial Plast Surg Clin North Am 2012; 20: 365–82.
10. Patil RS, Gudi SS. Management of subcondylar fracture through intraoral approach with rigid internal fixation. J Maxillofac Oral Surg 2011; 10: 209–15.
11. Lauer G, Haim D, Proff P, Ritcher G, Pardel W, Fanghanel J Et al. Plate osteosynthesis of the mandibular condyle. Ann Anat. 2007;189: 412-7.
12. Frerich B, Seemann R, Wagner A. Locking versus non locking miniplate osteosynthesis of mandibular fractures— Preliminary results. J Craniomaxillofac Surg. 2006; 34: 113-6.
13. Haim D, Müller A, Leonhardt H, Nowak A, Richter G, Lauer G. Biomechanical study of the Delta plate and the Tri Lock Delta condyle trauma plate. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2011; 69: 2619-25.
14. Lauer G, Pradel W, Schneider M, Eckelt U. A new 3- dimensional plate for transoral endoscopic-assisted osteosynthesis of condylar neck fractures. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2007; 65:964-71.
15. Anirudhan A, Khalam SA, Zachariah RK. Evaluation of clinical use of indigenously developed delta plate in management of subcondylar fracture. Clin Pract. 2013; 3:74-6.
16. Laurer G. Rhombic 3D Condylar Fracture Plate: Threedimensional geometries for multilateral forces. KLS Martin 2013.
17. Sikora M, Sielski M, Stąpor A, Chlubek D. Use of the Delta plate for surgical treatment of patients with condylar fractures. J Craniomaxillofac Surg. 2016; 44(7):770-4.
18. Hou J, Chen L, Wang T, Jing W, Tang W, Long J, Tian W, Liu L. A new surgical approach to treat medial or low condylar fractures: the minor parotid anterior approach. Oral Surg Oral Med. Oral Pathol Oral Radiol. 2014; 117: 283-8.
19.Croce A, Moretti A, Vitullo F, Castriotta A, Rosa de M, Citraro L. Transparotid approach for mandibular condylar neck and subcondylar fractures. Acta Otorhinolaryngol Ital. 2010; 30:303-9.
20. Ellis E 3rd, McFadden D, Simon P, Throckmorton G. Surgical complications with open treatment of mandibular condylar process fractures. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2000;58: 950-8.
21.Choi BH, Yi CK, Yoo JH. Clinical evaluation of 3 types of plate osteosynthesis for fixation of condylar neck fractures. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2001; 59:734-7.
22. Sandler NA. Endoscopic-assisted reduction and fixation of mandibular subcondylar fracture: report of a case. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2001; 59:1479-82.
23. Zrounba H, Lutz JC, Zink S, Wilk A. Epidemiology and treatment outcome of surgically treated mandibular condyle fractures. A five years’ retrospective study. J Craniomaxillofac Surg2014; 42:879-84.
24. Hidding J, Wolf R, Pingel D. Surgical versus non-surgical treatment of fractures of the articular process of the mandible. J Cranio-maxillofac Surg 1992; 20:345–7.
25. You HJ, Moon KC, Yoon ES, Lee BI, ParkSH. Clinical and radiological outcomes of transoral endoscope assisted treatment of mandibular condylar fractures. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg.2016;45:284-91.
| ||||
|
Statistics Article View: 216 PDF Download: 413 |
||||
