Kamel, M., Abd El Moniem, N., Abdel AalHassanein, F., Hassan, S. (2016). Conventional 2.0 mm Miniplates versus 3D Miniplate in Mandibular Fracture Fixation. Al-Azhar Dental Journal for Girls, 3(4), 325-330. doi: 10.21608/adjg.2016.5187
Mariam Kamel; Nahed Abd El Moniem; Fahmy Abdel AalHassanein; Susan Hassan. "Conventional 2.0 mm Miniplates versus 3D Miniplate in Mandibular Fracture Fixation". Al-Azhar Dental Journal for Girls, 3, 4, 2016, 325-330. doi: 10.21608/adjg.2016.5187
Kamel, M., Abd El Moniem, N., Abdel AalHassanein, F., Hassan, S. (2016). 'Conventional 2.0 mm Miniplates versus 3D Miniplate in Mandibular Fracture Fixation', Al-Azhar Dental Journal for Girls, 3(4), pp. 325-330. doi: 10.21608/adjg.2016.5187
Kamel, M., Abd El Moniem, N., Abdel AalHassanein, F., Hassan, S. Conventional 2.0 mm Miniplates versus 3D Miniplate in Mandibular Fracture Fixation. Al-Azhar Dental Journal for Girls, 2016; 3(4): 325-330. doi: 10.21608/adjg.2016.5187
Conventional 2.0 mm Miniplates versus 3D Miniplate in Mandibular Fracture Fixation
1Master student, Faculty of Dental Medicine for Girls, Al-Azhar University (Girls’ branch).
2Lecturer of Oral&Maxillofacial Department, Faculty of Dental Medicine, Al-Azhar University (Girls’ branch).
3Professor of Oral&Maxillofacial Surgery, Faculty of Oral and Dental Medicine, Cairo University.
4Chairman of Oral&Maxillofacial Surgery Department, Faculty of Dental Medicine,Al-Azhar University (Girls’ branch)
Abstract
The aim of the present study was to clinically and radiographically compare and evaluate the treatment outcomes using 3D miniplate versus conventional 2.0 mm miniplates in fractures fixation of the anterior mandible. The study enrolled 16 patients with a total of 18 fractures; suffering from anterior mandibular fractures (symphysis and/or parasymphysis) requiring open reduction and internal fixations through an intra-oral approach. Groups I patients were fixed using 3D titanium miniplates and screws. Group II patients were fixed using two 2.0 mm titanium miniplates and screws. Postoperative primary clinical treatment outcome points for comparative evaluation for all patients were fracture stability, the need for additional IMF, the need for minor occlusal adjustments and satisfactory occlusion. Secondary assessment points were infection, wound dehiscence and neurosensory deficit. Radiographic evaluation postoperatively was in terms of reduction adequacy, bone union and condylar positional change measurement. With respect to all the evaluated parameters, statistical analysis showed no statistically significant difference between the two groups in terms of clinical and radiographic treatment outcomes.
Top