Home | About us | Editorial board | Ahead of print | Current issue | Archives | Search | Submit article | Instructions | Subscribe | Advertise | Contact us |  Login 
National Journal of Maxillofacial Surgery
 
Print this page Email this page Small font sizeDefault font sizeIncrease font size
Users Online: 258
 


 
Table of Contents
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Year : 2016  |  Volume : 7  |  Issue : 1  |  Page : 71-75  

Transoral approach alone in single miniplate osteosynthesis of angle fracture - our experience


1 Department of Dentistry, BPS Government Medical College for Women, Khanpur Kalan, Sonipat, Haryana, India
2 Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Goa Dental College and Hospital, Bambolim, Goa, India
3 Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Inderprastha Dental College and Hospital, Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh, India

Date of Web Publication19-Dec-2016

Correspondence Address:
Sunil Yadav
Department of Dentistry, BPS Government Medical College for Women, Khanpur Kalan, Sonipat - 131 305, Haryana
India
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


DOI: 10.4103/0975-5950.196136

Rights and Permissions
   Abstract 

Aim: The aim of this study was to determine the outcome of transoral approach alone to treat the mandibular angle fracture using single 2.0 mm miniplate. Materials and Methods: In this study, 28 patients were included and treated with 2.0 mm single miniplate osteosynthesis at upper border along Champy's line of osteosynthesis using transoral approach alone. Results: All the cases were treated successfully with 2.0 mm single miniplate with common complications such as infection (two cases) and plate exposure (one case) in a total of two cases. Conclusion: Use of single miniplates by transoral approach alone for superior border osteosynthesis is effective and simple approach without need of extra armamentarium.

Keywords: Angle region, mandible fracture, single miniplate, transoral approach


How to cite this article:
Yadav S, Mittal HC, Dhupar V, Akkara F, Sachdeva A. Transoral approach alone in single miniplate osteosynthesis of angle fracture - our experience. Natl J Maxillofac Surg 2016;7:71-5

How to cite this URL:
Yadav S, Mittal HC, Dhupar V, Akkara F, Sachdeva A. Transoral approach alone in single miniplate osteosynthesis of angle fracture - our experience. Natl J Maxillofac Surg [serial online] 2016 [cited 2017 Feb 21];7:71-5. Available from: http://www.njms.in/text.asp?2016/7/1/71/196136


   Introduction Top


The mandible occupies a very prominent position on the face and vulnerable to intentional and unintentional trauma accounting for nearly 70% of maxillofacial fractures.[1],[2] Haug et al. gave the ratio of the incidence of mandibular, zygomatic, and maxillary fractures were 6:2:1, respectively.[3]

Mandibular angle fractures have increased significantly in the last decade [3],[4] and represent 26%–35% of all mandibular fractures.[1],[2] There are several reasons proposed for the increased occurrence of mandibular angle fracture: The abrupt change in the anatomy at mandibular angle region which is 20° in the vertical plane and 90° in the horizontal plane at the upper border, the presence of impacted mandibular third molars, which weakens the region,[5],[6] less cross-sectional area due to the large amount of space occupied by the crypt of mandibular third molars, and biomechanical consideration of angle as a lever area of mandible.[7]

The unfavorable mandibular angle fractures require open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) as the applied masticatory forces lead to rotation of the proximal and distal fracture segments and cause displacement of the ramus.[6],[7] These above said reasons and limited intraoral access make treatment difficult with high complication rate (0%–32%).[8],[9],[10]

The type of fracture, location of fracture, amount of displacement, surgeon's experience, and training often dictate decision about approaches for ORIF of angle fractures. Various treatment modalities are in-practice for mandibular angle fractures ranging from simple maxillomandibular fixation (MMF) to rigid internal fixation, although the ideal modality remains controversial.[11],[12],[13]

The aim of this study was to determine the outcome of intraoral approach alone to treat the fractures of the mandibular angle using single 2.0 mm miniplate.


   Materials and Methods Top


A total of 28 patients treated for mandibular angle fracture were included over the period from January 2014 to December 2015 in the present study. Patients were aged 16–56 years with sufficient dentition to reproduce the occlusion. All the patients were treated with a single four holed, 2.0-mm noncompression miniplate at the superior border through transoral approach alone.

All the cases were admitted as inpatients and treated after obtaining written informed consent from the patient. Orthopantomogram was the radiographic investigation of choice for all patients.

General anesthesia was administered through nasotracheal intubation. The occlusion was reestablished after manual reduction and MMF was achieved through the application of the arch bars. The incision was placed intraorally, over the external oblique ridge starting from the distal aspect of the second molar and extending over the ascending ramus posteriorly about 1 cm superior to occlusal plane. A full thickness mucoperiosteal flap was reflected along the superior and lateral aspect of the mandible taking care to preserve the integrity of the lingual mucoperiosteum. Third molars in the line of injury, which were mobile, had root exposure in markedly distracted fractures, or interfered with either reduction or fixation of fractures was extracted.

A 2 mm four-hole noncompression miniplate plate was contoured and adapted along the medial side of the external oblique ridge and held in position with plate holding forceps.

The first drill hole was placed closest to the fracture site on the distal fragment using 2-mm bur and copious saline irrigation. The plate was stabilized with a 2-mm titanium screw. The second hole was placed on the closest to the fracture anteriorly and stabilized. The other two holes were similarly prepared and stabilized. We did not use drains in our patients. We applied MMF to all of our patients for 10 days. The occlusion and alignment of the fracture line were checked, and the wounds were closed with polyglactin 3-0 sutures.

All the patients were discharged on the third active postoperative day. Antibiotics were maintained for 5 days postoperatively. All patients were advised soft diet and given oral hygiene instructions.

The follow-up period was for a maximum of 6 months with review being done at 7 days, 3 weeks, 3 months, and 6 months with instructions to report to the department in case of any problems.


   Results Top


We studied 28 patients with mandibular angle fractures. Of the total, 24 patients (86%) were males and 4 patients (14%) were females with male: female ratio of 6:1. Preoperatively, cross bite was present in all cases. Out of 28 patients [Figure 1], 16 patients (57.1%) had angle fracture alone, 6 patients (21.4%) had associated parasymphysis fractures and body of the mandible, 3 patients (10.7%) had associated condylar fractures, and 3 patients (10.7%) had associated midface fractures. Assaults and road traffic accidents were observed as the most common etiological factors. Fifteen patients (53.57%) presented with neurosensory deficit preoperatively. Those patients who had no neurosensory deficit (46.4%) did not show any neurosensory changes after plating [Figure 2]. MMF was given to all the patients while transoral plating. Plate exposure was observed in 1 patient (3.6%), and infection occurred in only 2 patients (7.1%), which include the patient of plate exposure. None of our patients had malocclusion or malunion over the period of 6 months. All the patients (100%) achieved good occlusion and temporomandibular joint movements [Figure 3].
Figure 1: Distribution of patients based on fracture site

Click here to view
Figure 2: Distribution of the patients based on the neurosensory deficit

Click here to view
Figure 3: Distribution of patients based on complications

Click here to view



   Discussion Top


The angle fracture is the most frequent site when only one fracture is present.[3],[4] The treatment is dictated by the anatomical location of the fracture line, type of fracture, amount of displacement of the fractured segments, dentition of the patient, associated maxillofacial fractures and general condition of the patient, principles of fixation, esthetic demand by the patient, and experience of the operator. Due to various factors mentioned above, the management of mandibular angle fractures is still a topic of debate in terms of best approach to be used.

Angle fractures of mandible are managed either using closed reduction by MMF or ORIF. Although the closed reduction and MMF are commonly accepted method for treatment of favorable mandibular angle fractures, the major disadvantages are restricted airway, loose excess weight, inability to maintain oral hygiene, and more vulnerable to the sequelae of postoperative hemorrhage and edema. Moreover, the patient has to survive on a liquid diet for 4–6 weeks.[8] MMF for 4–6 weeks may result in marked thinning and disruption of the articular cartilage.[14]

The methods of ORIF are lag screw osteosynthesis, miniplate osteosynthesis, dynamic compression plates (AO/ASIF principles), and AO reconstruction plate. The advantages of the rigid intraoral fixation over closed reduction technique are: shorter MMF period or no MMF, early return to function, increased patient satisfaction, stable anatomic reduction, minor risk of postoperative fractured fragments displacement, decreased hospital stay, and faster healing.[5],[15],[16]

According to Scolozzi and Richter,[17] one must perform osteosynthesis capable of supporting full functional load and reinitializing tension forces while maintaining fractures fragments in the anatomic position in case of comminuted fractures, which is possible by AO reconstruction plate only. However, AO reconstruction plates cause the extraoral scar through which the plate is inserted, and the possibility of injury to the marginal mandibular branch of facial nerve is high.[18] AO reconstruction plate should be used in infected and comminuted fractures or extensive bone loss cases.

Compression plates based on AO/ASIF principle have an inherent set of disadvantages. The use of bicortical screws causes sensory disturbances of inferior alveolar nerve in many cases. Postoperative malocclusion rates are also high due to the problems in bending and adapting the rigid compression plate. The traditional extraoral approach has certain disadvantages such as an unaesthetic scar, the risk of facial nerve injury, though exposure and direct application of the plate was better with this approach.[19]

The main objective of any approach is to promote rapid healing, restore the anatomical form and function to reestablish the functional occlusion, facial esthetics with minimal disability, and complications. The transoral approach has overawed the extraoral approach for the management of mandibular angle fractures due to increased esthetic demands and avoidance of extraoral scar.[20],[21]

Singh et al. described the placement of easily bendable miniplate with monocortical screws transorally in 1973.[22] This technique contradicted the AO concept on compression and absolute rigidity. Champy later executed a series of experiments with miniplate that explained “ideal lines of osteosynthesis” within the mandible.[22] According to Champy et al. optimal fixation, stability and a successful outcome can be achieved by miniplate fixation on the mandibular superior border or just below external oblique ridge in cases of the angle fractures as undesirable tensile forces are neutralized while favorable compressive forces are retained during function.[23] The advantages of intraoral approach with miniplates include less risk of facial nerve damage and formation of hypertrophic scar; minimal mucoperiosteal flap need be raised preserving major blood supply, ease of adaptation, ability to confirm occlusion during surgery, and less likely to be palpable because of their smaller size and thinner profile. Moreover, the removal of the plate is easier as it may be performed in the outpatient setup.[16],[24]

Gear et al.[25] published a survey on current trends in the management of simple, noncomminuted mandibular angle fractures and concluded that a single miniplate on the superior border of the mandible has become the preferred method of treatment among surgeons. Choi et al.[26] showed that two-miniplate fixation technique provides a better stability compared with Champy's method while Schierle et al.[27] reported that two-plate fixation might not offer advantages over single plate fixation. Single miniplate fixation is associated with lower complication rate [11],[28] compared to double miniplate fixation and no signs of malocclusion [29] for mandibular angle fractures.[8] Ellis [24] examined various treatments modalities for angle fractures and showed a significantly higher complication rate using compression plates.

Keeping the above-mentioned results in mind of all the available techniques, we concentrated on the use of miniplate superior border osteosynthesis (buccal shelf of external oblique ridge) as per Champy's technique to treat noncomminuted angle fractures. In the present study, 2-mm four-hole plate with gap and 2 mm × 8 mm monocortical screws for holes closer to the tooth and 2 mm × 10 mm screws for holes away from the tooth were used transorally.

The studies in literature by Gear et al. and Sugar et al. have shown increased surgical time with the transbuccal approach when compared to the transoral approach.[25],[30] In the present study, the time taken for plating by transoral approach was a mean of 45.6 min. According to Devireddy et al.,[7] who compared transoral and extraoral approach for angle fracture osteosynthesis, found that a mean time for plating was 49.7 min transorally and a mean of 73.4 min extraoral approach. They also found transoral approach had minimum difficulty level in the management of the fractures as compared to extraoral approach. A recent study on comparison between transoral versus transbuccal approach for the management of mandibular angle fractures by Khandeparker et al.[31] showed that there is no significant difference between the two approaches for surgical time, ease of plate fixation, and no long-term occlusal discrepancy.

Our study found no complications associated with superior border miniplate fixation of mandibular angle fractures except plate exposure in one case and infection in two cases only, which included the plate exposure case. The results of our study are in contrast to Nakamura et al.,[32] who found higher complication rate with miniplate fixation. Barry and Kearns [6] presented fifty patients of isolated angle fractures treated with superior border plating and reported 12% experienced complications requiring plate removal, 8% patients experienced superficial soft tissue infections associated with bone plate, treated with oral antibiotics, 2% experienced plate exposure, and a further patient 2% presented with a fractured bone plate.

In the present study, 15 (54%) patients presented with neurosensory deficit preoperatively and 13 (46%) patients had no neurosensory deficit. Not a single patient was identified with sensory nerve disturbance after plating. The sensory nerve disturbances identified after surgery are possibly due to the manipulations at the fracture site during the surgery and most of them being transient.[8] Ellis et al. showed 17.2% of total facial nerve disturbances improved after 6 weeks and complete healing after 6 months.[33] Fox and Kellman studied complications in patients treated with two-miniplate fixation for mandibular angle fractures and reported the incidence of damage to inferior alveolar nerve in 4.4% of their patients.[5]

None of our patients showed signs of malunion. Malunion is associated with decreased blood supply to the area, following mandibular fracture treatment.[29] Similarly, Siddiqui et al. found no case of malunion;[34] however, Passeri et al. reported 1%–2% malunion.[35]

The complication rate is one of the criteria for evaluating the efficacy of treatment of angle fracture. In literature, the complication rate varies from 2.3% to 25.2%.[22] Such enormous difference in complication rate by different authors is because some authors attribute bleeding, hematomas, infections, neural damage, and postoperative calluses to complications while others think that complications include fracture fragments adhesion failure, damage to the lower alveolar nerve, osteomyelitis, and malocclusion.[22] Iizuka and Lindqvist [36] also noted infection as an important complication and suggested that it can be reduced by experience of the operator.


   Conclusion Top


Use of single miniplates by transoral approach alone for superior border osteosynthesis is effective and simple approach without need of extra armamentarium compared to transbuccal or extraoral approaches for the treatment of mandibular angle fractures. The chances of morbidity and complications are feeble. In addition, this method reduces the cost of second miniplates and time for treating mandibular angle fracture.

Financial support and sponsorship

Nil.

Conflicts of interest

There are no conflicts of interest.

 
   References Top

1.
Kuriakose MA, Fardy M, Sirikumara M, Patton DW, Sugar AW. A comparative review of 266 mandibular fractures with internal fixation using rigid (AO/ASIF) plates or mini-plates. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg 1996;34:315-21.  Back to cited text no. 1
    
2.
Rix L, Stevenson AR, Punnia-Moorthy A. An analysis of 80 cases of mandibular fractures treated with miniplate osteosynthesis. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 1991;20:337-41.  Back to cited text no. 2
    
3.
Haug RH, Prather J, Indresano AT. An epidemiologic survey of facial fractures and concomitant injuries. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 1990;48:926-32.  Back to cited text no. 3
    
4.
Ellis E 3rd, Moos KF, el-Attar A. Ten years of mandibular fractures: An analysis of 2,137 cases. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol 1985;59:120-9.  Back to cited text no. 4
    
5.
Fox AJ, Kellman RM. Mandibular angle fractures: Two-miniplate fixation and complications. Arch Facial Plast Surg 2003;5:464-9.  Back to cited text no. 5
    
6.
Barry CP, Kearns GJ. Superior border plating technique in the management of isolated mandibular angle fractures: A retrospective study of 50 consecutive patients. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2007;65:1544-9.  Back to cited text no. 6
    
7.
Devireddy SK, Kishore Kumar RV, Gali R, Kanubaddy SR, Dasari MR, Akheel M. Transoral versus extraoral approach for mandibular angle fractures: A comparative study. Indian J Plast Surg 2014;47:354-61.  Back to cited text no. 7
[PUBMED]  Medknow Journal  
8.
Yazdani J, Taheri Talesh K, Kalantar Motamedi MH, Khorshidi R, Fekri S, Hajmohammadi S. Mandibular angle fractures: Comparison of one miniplate vs. two miniplates. Trauma Mon 2013;18:17-20.  Back to cited text no. 8
    
9.
Bormann KH, Wild S, Gellrich NC, Kokemüller H, Stühmer C, Schmelzeisen R, et al. Five-year retrospective study of mandibular fractures in Freiburg, Germany: Incidence, etiology, treatment, and complications. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2009;67:1251-5.  Back to cited text no. 9
    
10.
Sirimaharaj W, Pyungtanasup K. The epidemiology of mandibular fractures treated at Chiang Mai University Hospital: A review of 198 cases. J Med Assoc Thai 2008;91:868-74.  Back to cited text no. 10
    
11.
Ellis E 3rd, Walker L. Treatment of mandibular angle fractures using two noncompression miniplates. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 1994;52:1032-6.  Back to cited text no. 11
    
12.
Schmelzeisen R, McIff T, Rahn B. Further development of titanium miniplate fixation for mandibular fractures. Experience gained and questions raised from a prospective clinical pilot study with 2.0 mm fixation plates. J Craniomaxillofac Surg 1992;20:251-6.  Back to cited text no. 12
    
13.
Wagner WF, Neal DC, Alpert B. Morbidity associated with extraoral open reduction of mandibular fractures. J Oral Surg 1979;37:97-100.  Back to cited text no. 13
    
14.
Brown JS, Grew N, Taylor C, Millar BG. Intermaxillary fixation compared to miniplate osteosynthesis in the management of the fractured mandible: An audit. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg 1991;29:308-11.  Back to cited text no. 14
    
15.
Cabrini Gabrielli MA, Real Gabrielli MF, Marcantonio E, Hochuli-Vieira E. Fixation of mandibular fractures with 2.0-mm miniplates: Review of 191 cases. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2003;61:430-6.  Back to cited text no. 15
    
16.
Kumaran PS, Thambiah L. Versatility of a single upper border miniplate to treat mandibular angle fractures: A clinical study. Ann Maxillofac Surg 2011;1:160-5.  Back to cited text no. 16
[PUBMED]  Medknow Journal  
17.
Scolozzi P, Richter M. Treatment of severe mandibular fractures using AO reconstruction plates. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2003;61:458-61.  Back to cited text no. 17
    
18.
Ellis E 3rd. Treatment of mandibular angle fractures using the AO reconstruction plate. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 1993;51:250-4.  Back to cited text no. 18
    
19.
Toma VS, Mathog RH, Toma RS, Meleca RJ. Transoral versus extraoral reduction of mandible fractures: A comparison of complication rates and other factors. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2003;128:215-9.  Back to cited text no. 19
    
20.
Dierks EJ. Transoral approach to fractures of the mandible. Laryngoscope 1987;97:4-6.  Back to cited text no. 20
    
21.
Raveh J, Vuillemin T, Lädrach K, Roux M, Sutter F. Plate osteosynthesis of 367 mandibular fractures. The unrestricted indication for the intraoral approach. J Craniomaxillofac Surg 1987;15:244-53.  Back to cited text no. 21
    
22.
Singh RK, Pal US, Agrawal A, Singh G. Single miniplate osteosynthesis in angle fracture. Natl J Maxillofac Surg 2011;2:47-50.  Back to cited text no. 22
[PUBMED]  Medknow Journal  
23.
Champy M, Loddé JP, Schmitt R, Jaeger JH, Muster D. Mandibular osteosynthesis by miniature screwed plates via a buccal approach. J Maxillofac Surg 1978;6:14-21.  Back to cited text no. 23
    
24.
Ellis E 3rd. Treatment methods for fractures of the mandibular angle. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 1999;28:243-52.  Back to cited text no. 24
    
25.
Gear AJ, Apasova E, Schmitz JP, Schubert W. Treatment modalities for mandibular angle fractures. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2005;63:655-63.  Back to cited text no. 25
    
26.
Choi BH, Kim KN, Kang HS. Clinical and in vitro evaluation of mandibular angle fracture fixation with the two-miniplate system. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 1995;79:692-5.  Back to cited text no. 26
    
27.
Schierle HP, Schmelzeisen R, Rahn B, Pytlik C. One- or two-plate fixation of mandibular angle fractures? J Craniomaxillofac Surg 1997;25:162-8.  Back to cited text no. 27
    
28.
Ellis E 3rd, Walker LR. Treatment of mandibular angle fractures using one noncompression miniplate. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 1996;54:864-71.  Back to cited text no. 28
    
29.
Anderson T, Alpert B. Experience with rigid fixation of mandibular fractures and immediate function. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 1992;50:555-60.  Back to cited text no. 29
    
30.
Sugar AW, Gibbons AJ, Patton DW, Silvester KC, Hodder SC, Gray M, et al. A randomised controlled trial comparing fixation of mandibular angle fractures with a single miniplate placed either transbuccally and intra-orally, or intra-orally alone. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2009;38:241-5.  Back to cited text no. 30
    
31.
Khandeparker PV, Dhupar V, Khandeparker RV, Jain H, Savant K, Berwal V. Transbuccal versus transoral approach for management of mandibular angle fractures: A prospective, clinical and radiographic study. J Korean Assoc Oral Maxillofac Surg 2016;42:144-50.  Back to cited text no. 31
    
32.
Nakamura S, Takenoshita Y, Oka M. Complications of miniplate osteosynthesis for mandibular fractures. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 1994;52:233-8.  Back to cited text no. 32
    
33.
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.  Back to cited text no. 33
    
34.
Siddiqui A, Markose G, Moos KF, McMahon J, Ayoub AF. One miniplate versus two in the management of mandibular angle fractures: A prospective randomised study. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2007;45:223-5.  Back to cited text no. 34
    
35.
Passeri LA, Ellis E 3rd, Sinn DP. Complications of nonrigid fixation of mandibular angle fractures. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 1993;51:382-4.  Back to cited text no. 35
    
36.
Iizuka T, Lindqvist C. Rigid internal fixation of fractures in the angular region of the mandible: An analysis of factors contributing to different complications. Plast Reconstr Surg 1993;91:265-71.  Back to cited text no. 36
    


    Figures

  [Figure 1], [Figure 2], [Figure 3]



 

Top
   
 
  Search
 
    Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
    Access Statistics
    Email Alert *
    Add to My List *
* Registration required (free)  

 
  In this article
    Abstract
   Introduction
    Materials and Me...
   Results
   Discussion
   Conclusion
    References
    Article Figures

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed64    
    Printed0    
    Emailed0    
    PDF Downloaded33    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal