The Assessment of Intermaxillary Fixation and Open Reduction Using Skeletal Anchorage System Compared With Arch Bar in Mandible Fracture Based on CT Image.

BACKGROUND: There are many different techniques to achieve intermaxillary fixation (IMF) for open reduction of mandible fractures. The arch bar has long been used as the gold standard of IMF to assist open reduction. However, owing to its long operating time, risk of needle stick injury, and gingival trauma, surgeons looked into different treatment options for IMF, such as the skeletal anchorage system (SAS). Therefore, this study aimed to compare the stability between IMF with arch bar and IMF with SAS based on computed tomography image. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In this retrospective study, postoperative computed tomography and panoramic radiographs were taken 1 week and 6 months after surgery, respectively. The treatment of mandibular fractures using IMF with arch bar and SAS were compared by evaluating changes in the dental midlines and condyle positions. Thirty patients with mandibular fractures were enrolled into 2 groups-IMF with arch bar and IMF with SAS. RESULTS: The arch bar showed slightly more deviation in dental midline. In SAS, the condyle moved more medially compared with the arch bar. CONCLUSIONS: Skeletal anchorage system could be used for IMF with reliable stability in mandible fracture. There were no significant differences in the treatment outcome between the 2 groups.

Principios y recursos clásicos y modernos: combinación en el manejo de fracturas tipo Le Fort / Classical and modern principles and resources: their combination in the management of Le Fort fractures

Introducción: Las lesiones traumáticas maxilofaciales son un problema de salud importante en todo el mundo. Suponen una carga para la salud pública. Objetivo: Reflexionar sobre la necesidad de combinar en el contexto cubano principios y recursos clásicos y modernos en el manejo de fracturas tipo Le Fort. Comentarios principales: El tratamiento de las fracturas faciales ha evolucionado mucho a lo largo de los años. Tradicionalmente, el alambre de acero inoxidable se utilizaba para la osteosíntesis en cirugía maxilofacial hasta la aparición de las miniplacas. Los sistemas de osteosíntesis de titanio son actualmente los de elección en cirugía maxilofacial. A pesar de sus ventajas indiscutibles, en los países en desarrollo ocasionalmente no se cuenta con todo el equipamiento necesario para su empleo. Consideraciones globales: El manejo del trauma maxilofacial se centra en la reobtención de la forma y la función original de la región afectada. Sin vulnerar los principios teóricos de manejo de fracturas tipo Le Fort, se impone de los profesionales cubanos la búsqueda de soluciones en concordancia con la disponibilidad de recursos. La unión de técnicas clásicas y recursos modernos como las suspensiones craneofaciales alámbricas, los arcos barra y los tornillos de fijación maxilomandibular puede ser una alternativa terapéutica confiable(AU)

Introduction: Traumatic maxillofacial lesions are an important global health problem, as well as a public health burden. Objective: Reflect on the need to combine classical and modern principles and resources in the management of Le Fort fractures in the Cuban context. Main remarks: Treatment of facial fractures has evolved considerably through the years. Before the appearance of miniplates, stainless steel wire was used for osteosynthesis in maxillofacial surgery. Titanium osteosynthesis systems are currently the systems of choice in maxillofacial surgery. Despite their undeniable advantages, developing countries occasionally do not have all the equipment required for their use. General considerations: Management of maxillofacial trauma is aimed at recovering the original form and function of the affected area. Without disregarding the theoretical principles of the management of Le Fort fractures, Cuban professionals should search for solutions in keeping with the resources available. The combination of classical techniques and modern resources, such as wired craniofacial suspensions, bar arches and maxillomandibular fixation screws, may be a reliable therapeutic alternative(AU)

Novel and Affordable Low-Cost Technique for Fixation of Parasymphyseal Fractures in Infants With Unerupted Dentition.

PURPOSE: Pediatric mandibular fractures are immensely challenging compared to adult fractures. The current update management spectrum ranges from the conservative one in the form of soft diet and regular follow-up, or less invasive surgical intervention by closed reduction and nonrigid fixation, to open reduction and internal fixation with plates and screws. In this study, we investigated the use of a straightforward fabricated mold for the parasymphyseal mandibular fracture in infants with an unerupted dentition. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This prospective study was conducted on 8 infants presenting with parasymphyseal fractures with unerupted dentitions in our specialized trauma center. In the operating room before the induction of anesthesia, the authors used a straightforward plastic airway to create a splint. The curved part was split into 2 transverse halves making 2 U-shaped curved pieces that were utilized as a mold. Intraoperatively, the U-shaped piece was placed over the mandible and stabilized with circummandibular wires. This molded airway is used to stabilize the fracture site for 2-3 weeks. The average period of follow-up was around 6 months. RESULTS: The average time of mandibular fixation was 17.6 ± 2.4 SD (14 to 20) days. The mean of the total operative time was 38.7 ± 3.5 SD minutes, ranging from 35 to 45 minutes. Our infants were observed in the outpatient clinic for 6 months postoperatively during the follow-up period. There were no noticeable complications nor any interference with tooth eruption or mandibular growth. CONCLUSIONS: The results of this study suggest that this technique is straightforward to use and affordable. It does not require a long learning period. It also exhibits the advantage of reducing the cost in many developing countries.

A Clinical Comparison and Economic Evaluation of Erich Arch Bars, 4-Point Fixation, and Bone-Supported Arch Bars for Maxillomandibular Fixation.

Importance: Erich arch bars, 4-point fixation, and bone-supported arch bars are currently used in maxillomandibular fixation, although to what extent they differ in terms of overall charges and clinical outcomes has yet to be reported. Objective: To determine the association of Erich arch bars, 4-point fixation, and bone-supported arch bars in maxillomandibular fixation with hospital charges and clinical outcomes. Design, Setting, and Participants: This historical cohort included 93 patients with mandible fracture who underwent maxillomandibular fixation from January 1, 2005, to June 30, 2015, at a tertiary care center. Statistical analysis was conducted from October 4, 2015, to September 8, 2017. Main Outcomes and Measures: Charge analysis from an institutional perspective, operative time, necessity for a secondary procedure, and postoperative complications. Results: Of the 93 patients in the study (18 women and 75 men; median age, 28.0 years [interquartile range, 23.0-40.0 years]), 27 (29%) received Erich arch bars, 51 (55%) received 4-point fixation, and 15 (16%) received bone-supported arch bars. The mean operative time for Erich arch bars (98.7 minutes; 95% CI, 89.2-108.2 minutes) was significantly longer than for 4-point fixation (48.8 minutes; 95% CI, 41.8-55.7 minutes) and bone-supported arch bars (55.9 minutes; 95% CI, 43.1-68.6 minutes). A total of 17 patients who received Erich arch bars (63%), 37 patients who received 4-point fixation (72%), and 1 patient who received bone-supported arch bars (7%) needed to return to the operating room for hardware removal. Patients who received Erich arch bars and those who received 4-point fixation had significantly higher odds of requiring a secondary procedure than did patients who received bone-supported arch bars (Erich arch bars: odds ratio, 27.1; 95% CI, 2.7-274.6; and 4-point fixation: odds ratio, 42.8; 95% CI, 4.4-420.7). Mean total operative charges for application of the hardware alone were significantly less for 4-point fixation ($5290; 95% CI, $4846-$5733) and bone-supported arch bars ($6751; 95% CI, $5936-$7566) than for Erich arch bars ($7919; 95% CI, $7311-$8527). When secondary procedure charges were included, the mean total charge for Erich arch bars ($9585; 95% CI, $8927-$10 243) remained significantly more expensive than the mean total for 4-point fixation ($7204; 95% CI, $6724-$7684) and bone-supported arch bars ($6924; 95% CI, $6042-$7807). No clinically meaningful difference in complications between groups was found (Erich arch bars, 3 [11%]; 4-point fixation, 5 [10%]; and bone-supported arch bars, 2 [13%]). Conclusions and Relevance: Bone-supported arch bars have comparable complication outcomes, operative time for placement, and overall charges when compared with Erich arch bars and 4-point fixation, and have a lower likelihood of requiring removal in an operative setting.

Comparison of single versus two non-compression miniplates in the management of unfavourable angle fracture of the mandible: a prospective randomized clinical study.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to compare the efficacy of single versus two non-compression miniplates in the management of unfavourable angle fracture of mandible. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 28 patients who required open reduction of mandibular angle fracture were included in the study. The patients were randomly divided into two groups. Group I comprised of patients treated with two miniplates and those in group II were treated with single non-compression miniplate. The parameters of assessment were malocclusion, surgical site infection, need for implant removal, duration of surgery, inter-incisal mouth opening and cost of implants used, in both the groups. Statistical analysis was carried out to compare all the parameters. RESULTS: Out of 14 patients in group II, inadequate reduction was noticed in three patients, whereas screw loosening had occurred in two cases. Screw loosening was always associated with chronic infection. In these cases, hardware removal was deemed necessary. Plate bending was observed in two cases resulting in malocclusion and difficulty in eating. Non-union of fracture occurred in one patient treated in group II. In group I, no plate bending, screw loosening, surgical site infection, non-union or malocclusion was observed. No patient had to undergo implant removal in group I. CONCLUSION: In the management of unfavourable mandibular angle fracture, two miniplates must be preferred over the use of single miniplate as using two miniplates results in better results with minimal complications.

How to produce pre-shaped rigid arch bars using low-cost 3D printing technology - A technical note.

Numerous oral and maxillofacial procedures in dentate patients begin with the fixation of occlusions. While several techniques exist to perform mandibulo-maxillary fixation, many surgeons use arch bars in common practice. In cases of severe craniofacial traumas or jaw malformations, such as temporomandibular joint ankylosis, it may be impossible to use rigid arch bars. This technical note reports on the development of a technique to produce pre-shaped rigid arch bars using 3D printing technology. We take the case of a patient who presents Le Fort 1, Le Fort 2 and Le Fort 3 fractures as well as a central palatine disjunction, an angular mandibular fracture and bilateral zygomatic fractures. We specify the indications and limitations of this technique.

A comparison of three treatment methods for fractures of the mandibular angle.

The purpose of this study was to determine a practical and cost-effective treatment method for fixing mandibular angle fractures using miniplates. Patients were divided into three groups for comparison, based on the intraoperative plates and maxillomandibular fixation (MMF) used: group A, single miniplate fixation with MMF (n=37); group B, double miniplate fixation with MMF (n=59); group C, double miniplate fixation without MMF (n=38). Details of the characteristics of the fractures and the treatments and outcomes were collected retrospectively and analyzed statistically. This study was based on 134 cases of isolated mandibular angle fracture. Of the surgically treated patients, 78.4% (n=105) were completely free of complications. A detailed complication correlation matrix is given in the text. Besides screw loosening and malocclusion, no statistically significant difference was observed between the groups. The results of this study suggest that treatment with single miniplate fixation and MMF has a low incidence rate of complications, and this method of treatment is considered to be simple.

Análise por Elementos Finitos das Forças Mastigatórias em uma Placa de Reconstrução Mandibular / Assessment of masticatory forces in a mandibular reconstruction titanium plate through finite element analysis

Ressecção cirúrgica é um tratamento radical de algumas patologias que acometem a mandíbula e suas estruturas associadas. A técnica baseia-se na remoção total da lesão com uma margem de segurança em toda a sua dimensão, podendo ser ela marginal ou parcial. A escolha dá-se pela proximidade da extensão da lesão com a margem inferior da mandíbula. Em situações de ressecção mandibular parcial, remove-se parcialmente a margem inferior da mandíbula o que, posteriormente, dificulta a reobtenção da estética e funcionalidade do aparelho estomatognático, sendo a área reconstruída com uma placa de reconstrução óssea. A análise de elementos finitos (AEF) é uma forma de análise matemática, que se fundamenta na divisão de uma estrutura em um número finito de pequenas áreas, denominado de elementos finitos. A essa divisão dá se o nome de "malha". Em geral, a AEF possui a capacidade de modelar matematicamente estruturas, tornando-se possível a aplicação de forças em qualquer ponto e/ou direção. Dessa forma, conseguem-se dados sobre a deformação e o grau de tensão inicial, sendo possível, assim, representar situações in vivo, expressando condições compatíveis com o real. O trabalho visa analisar e simular as tensões geradas pelas forças mastigatórias, com o uso de elementos finitos, em simulação de uma mandíbula reconstruída com placa e parafusos de titânio, após sua ressecção parcial... (AU)

Surgical ressection is a radical treatment of some pathologies that affect the mandible and its structures. The technique is based on total removal of the lesion with a safe margin in all extension of the bone. Partial mandible resection results in a difficult to obtain the aesthetic and functionality of the stomatognathic system. In such cases, is recommended a titanium plate commonly used to mandibular reconstruction. Finite Element Analysis (FEA) is a form of math analysis which is based on division of a structure in a finite number of small areas. In general, FEA has the ability to mathematically model structures making possible applying forces in any point and/ or direction. Thereby, it can bring forth datas of displacement and tension being possible representing in vivo situation. This study aims to analyze and simulate the tensions generated by the masticatory forces, using FEA in a mandibular reconstruction with titanium plate after partial resection... (AU)

Maxillomandibular Fixation by Plastic Surgeons: Cost Analysis and Utilization of Resources.

PURPOSE: Maxillomandibular fixation (MMF) can be performed using various techniques. Two common approaches used are arch bars and bone screws. Arch bars are the gold standard and inexpensive, but often require increased procedure time. Bone screws with wire fixation is a popular alternative, but more expensive than arch bars. The differences in costs of care, complications, and operative times between these 2 techniques are analyzed. METHODS: A chart review was conducted on patients treated over the last 12 years at our institution. Forty-four patients with CPT code 21453 (closed reduction of mandible fracture with interdental fixation) with an isolated mandible fracture were used in our data collection. The operating room (OR) costs, procedure duration, and complications for these patients were analyzed. RESULTS: Operative times were significantly shorter for patients treated with bone screws (P < 0.002). The costs for one trip to the OR for either method of fixation did not show any significant differences (P < 0.840). More patients with arch bar fixation (62%) required a second trip to the OR for removal in comparison to those with screw fixation (31%) (P < 0.068). This additional trip to the OR added significant cost. There were no differences in patient complications between these 2 fixation techniques. CONCLUSIONS: The MMF with bone screws represents an attractive alternative to fixation with arch bars in appropriate scenarios. Screw fixation offers reduced costs, fewer trips to the OR, and decreased operative duration without a difference in complications. Cost savings were noted most significantly in a decreased need for secondary procedures in patients who were treated with MMF screws. Screw fixation offers potential for reducing the costs of care in treating patients with minimally displaced or favorable mandible fractures.

Comparison of intraoral and extraoral approaches to mandibular angle fracture repair with cost implications.

OBJECTIVES/HYPOTHESIS: The objective of this study was to analyze outcomes of intraoral and extraoral approaches to mandibular angle fractures and provide cost estimates for comparison. STUDY DESIGN: A retrospective review from January 2005 to June 2013 was performed of patients who underwent open reduction internal fixation of mandibular angle fractures at a level I trauma center. METHODS: Patients were treated by three surgical specialties: otolaryngology-head and neck surgery, oral and maxillofacial surgery, and plastic and reconstructive surgery. Inpatient and outpatient medical records were reviewed for pertinent data including age, gender, duration of follow-up, presence of other mandible fractures, surgical approach, surgical team, operative time, and postoperative complications. RESULTS: Of the 155 patients with mandibular angle fractures, 74% underwent open reduction internal fixation through an intraoral approach, whereas 26% of patients were treated with an extraoral approach. The occurrence of any complication was 69.6% in the extraoral group and 39% in the intraoral group (P = 0.009). In propensity-weighted analysis, however, the occurrence of any complication was less frequent in intraoral cases but no longer statistically significant (odd ratio 0.28; 95% confidence interval, 0.08 to 1.02; P = 0.053). Operating room time was significantly shorter with the intraoral approach. We estimate that the intraoral approach directly saves at least $2,900 per case. CONCLUSION: We recommend the use of an intraoral approach for the repair of mandibular angle fractures when clinically appropriate. This can result in a comparable rate of success, however, with significant cost savings to the health care system. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 4. Laryngoscope, 126:591-595, 2016.

Assessment of sagittal split ramus osteotomy rigid internal fixation techniques using a finite element method.

In this study, finite element analysis (FEA) was used to evaluate nine rigid internal fixation techniques for sagittal split ramus osteotomy. To achieve this, a computed tomography (CT) scan of a healthy patient was obtained and used to generate the geometry of a half-mandible. The geometries of bicortical screws, miniplates, and monocortical screws were designed and combined with the mandible in nine models simulating various techniques. Four models used bicortical screws in various arrangements and four used miniplates of various designs. One model represented a hybrid technique. A load of 500 N was applied to the posterior teeth and FEA was applied. The most stable techniques were the hybrid technique and a single straight miniplate, presenting the least displacement among all models. Bicortical screws, while presenting reasonable stability, showed high strain areas near the anterior ramus ridge, superoposterior to the screws, implying a risk of bone fracture in this area. On the other hand, the T-shaped and double Y-shaped miniplates were associated with high von Mises stresses that would impair their rigidity, especially where angles appeared in their designs. We recommend the use of a single straight miniplate because it provides sufficient stable fixation with minimal risks or disadvantages.

Are embrasure wires better than arch bars for intermaxillary fixation?

PURPOSE: To compare the outcomes of mandible fractures treated with open reduction and internal fixation versus adjunctive intermaxillary fixation (IMF) using 2 different techniques. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We performed a retrospective medical record review. The medical records of consecutive patients with mandible fractures treated surgically with adjunctive use of IMF (embrasure wires vs arch bars) were reviewed for demographic data, etiology, fracture location, antibiotic use, and interval to repair. Specifically, the complications, including infection, malunion or nonunion, hardware failure, and wound dehiscence, were recorded. The data were analyzed using Student's t test and the chi-square test or Fisher's exact test, as appropriate. Statistical significance was set at P < .05. A descriptive cost analysis was also performed and compared with those from previously published studies. RESULTS: The data from 86 subjects were included in the present study. Of the 86 subjects, 33 were in the embrasure wire group and 53 in the arch bar group. Of the patients in the arch bar group, 26% had complications compared with 15% in the embrasure wire IMF group. No statistically significant difference between the groups in terms of infection (P = .63), hardware failure (P = .75), malocclusion (P = .85), and nonunion (P = 1.0). However, the cost of arch bar placement and removal was approximately $2,672 more than the placement of embrasure wires. CONCLUSIONS: Patients treated with embrasure wire IMF had slightly better clinical outcomes compared with those treated with arch bar IMF. Also, the cost reduction for patients treated with embrasure wire IMF was significant.

The assessment of the stability in mandibular setback surgery related to spatial factors under rotational control of the proximal segment.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the surgical relapse of mandibular setback, related to the magnitude of setback and LeFort I osteotomy under rotational control of the proximal segment. STUDY DESIGN: Data from 78 patients who had undergone sagittal split ramus osteotomy for mandibular prognathism were reviewed. The stability of the proximal segment was retrospectively confirmed. Serial cephalograms were used to assess relapse over 1 year. The association between relapse and LeFort I osteotomy as well as the magnitude of setback was assessed. RESULTS: Minimal counterclockwise rotation was noted postoperatively, but the proximal segment remained stable for 1 year. Notable forward relapse was shown in the setback of more than 7 mm (P < .01) with resumption of function after 6 weeks, but it was not related with LeFort I osteotomy. CONCLUSIONS: Relapse was related to the amount of setback and occurred on resumption of function despite rotational control of the proximal segment.

Treatment outcomes with the use of maxillomandibular fixation screws in the management of mandible fractures.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this prospective randomized study was to assess whether uncomplicated mandible fractures could be treated successfully in an open or closed fashion using maxillomandibular fixation (MMF) screws. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This was a prospective institutional review board-approved study involving 20 adult patients who presented to the university emergency department or oral and maxillofacial surgical clinic with uncomplicated mandible fractures. Patients who met the exclusion criteria consented to enter the study in the open reduction internal fixation (ORIF) or the closed (MMF) study group. Six to 8 MMF screws were used to obtain intermaxillary fixation (IMF) in the 2 groups. Screw failure was documented. All screws were removed at 5 to 6 weeks postoperatively. Insertional torque (IT) was measured at time of screw placement to assess primary stability. Clinical and photographic documentation was performed to assess fracture healing, occlusion, and gingival health. Ten-centimeter visual analog scales were used to assess patient-centered outcomes. Cone-beam computed tomography was performed to assess the long-term effects on the periodontium and roots. A cost comparison was performed to determine whether the use of screws was cost effective compared with arch bars. RESULTS: Fifteen men and 5 women (mean age, 25.2 yr) entered the study. All patients displayed adequate fracture healing based on clinical examination. All patients had acceptable occlusion at 5 to 6 weeks postoperatively. Total screw failure was 27 of 106 screws (25.5%). Forty percent of screws placed in the MMF group failed compared with only 6% in the ORIF group. Gingival health scores were favorable. Factors that had a significant effect on screw failure included a lower IT (P = .002), use in closed (MMF) treatment (P < .001), and use in the posterior jaw (P = .012). Minimal pain was associated with the MMF screws and pre-existing occlusion was re-established based on patients' subjective responses. The MMF group reported a statistically significant lower quality of life (P < .001) compared with the ORIF group. There was only 1 screw site that had a facial cortical bone defect noted at 6-month follow-up CBCT examination. There were no discernible long-term root defects. Cost analysis showed that the use of MMF screws saved around $600 per patient in operating room usage cost alone compared with the estimated use of arch bars. CONCLUSIONS: Uncomplicated mandible fractures were successfully treated using MMF screws in open and closed treatments. However, the utility in closed treatment was decreased because of significant screw failure and patient noncompliance. The screws were well tolerated by the patients. There was minimal long-term damage to the periodontium and dental roots. The cost of screws was more than offset by time savings.

Long-term outcome assessment of closed treatment of mandibular fractures.

Mandibular fractures are among the most common trauma injuries of the craniomaxillofacial region. This study evaluated the late results of mandibles fractures treated with arch bar. Forty-nine patients were examined clinically and by questionnaires for late results of arch bar treatment. Demographic data (age, sex, etc), trigeminal nerve sensation (Weber test), temporomandibular joint evaluation, masticatory muscle function, and occlusion were recorded. The data were analyzed by χ test using Sigma Stat 2.0 software. Fifty-one percent of the patients with angular fractures complained of sensory disturbances. Condylar and angular fractures demonstrated higher levels of pain. According to Pearson χ test, a statistically significant relation between angular fracture and tenderness of the internal pterygoid muscles (P = 0.047), angular fracture and cross-bite (P = 0.021), parasymphysial fracture and pain upon wind blowing (P = 0.026), and body fracture and mastication discomfort (P = 0.038) was found. In closed reduction therapy, fracture location of the mandible seems to be more likely correlated in producing particular long-term complications. Regular follow-ups for functional treatments and physiotherapy of chewing muscles and temporomandibular joint, along with removal of occlusal abnormalities, should be considered following arch bar reduction of mandibular fractures.

Assessment of skeletal stability of intraoral vertical ramus osteotomy with one-day maxillary-mandibular fixation followed by early jaw exercise.

PURPOSE: Intraoral vertical ramus osteotomy (IVRO) is an effective surgical technique for cases of mandibular setback, is simpler and has a lower incidence of mental paraesthesia when compared to sagittal split ramus osteotomy (SSRO). However, IVRO has a disadvantage in the prolonged duration of postoperative maxillary-mandibular fixation (MMF) required due to the absence of rigid bone fixation. To avoid an extended MMF period, we developed a postoperative management protocol for our IVRO patients, using jaw exercises with elastic bands starting on the second day after surgery. METHODS: We evaluated the cephalometric skeletal and dental stabilities of 16 IVRO patients as they followed our protocol. RESULTS: The stabilities were confirmed and were similar to those of previous reports. CONCLUSION: One-day MMF and early initiation of jaw exercise after IVRO did not affect the jaw position stability. Moreover, our findings suggest that starting jaw exercise earlier after IVRO surgery is beneficial, as it allows patients to avoid a long period of rigid MMF so that they can resume their normal daily activities sooner.

Comparative assessment between eyelet wiring and direct interdental wiring for achieving intermaxillary fixation: a prospective randomized clinical study.

PURPOSE: The intention of this study was to compare the efficacy of eyelet wiring and direct interdental (Gilmer) wiring for achieving intermaxillary fixation (IMF). MATERIALS AND METHODS: This study was a prospective randomized clinical trial. The study sample was derived from the population of patients who underwent IMF at the Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Sharad Pawar Dental College, Wardha, India, between October 2008 and September 2010. The time required for placement and removal (in minutes) was compared between the eyelet wiring and direct interdental wiring techniques. Postoperative stability after achieving IMF was analyzed in the 2 groups. The plaque accumulation in both groups was evaluated using the Turesky-Gilmore-Glickman modification of the Quigley-Hein plaque index. Complications in the form of soft tissue injury, glove puncture, and trauma to the operator's finger were also recorded. Statistical analysis was performed with SPSS statistical software for Windows, version 8.0 (SPSS, Chicago, IL) using the χ(2) test and Student t test. RESULTS: The mean working time for placement and removal of eyelet wiring (group I) was 18.00 minutes and 9.67 minutes, respectively. For direct interdental wiring (group II), it was 30.50 minutes and 23.12 minutes, respectively. The mean plaque index values were 1.78 and 2.54 for groups I and II, respectively, which signifies a higher plaque deposition in group II. No occlusal disturbance was seen in either group. The incidences of glove perforation, soft tissue trauma, and trauma to the operator's finger were higher in group II. CONCLUSIONS: Eyelet wiring is preferable to direct interdental wiring as evidenced by fewer complications, and requires a shorter operating time in patients with minimally displaced fractures.

Maxillo-mandibular fixation: utility and current techniques in modern practice.

BACKGROUND: There appears to be a gradual relegation of maxillo-mandibular fixation (MMF) from the frontline of oral and maxillofacial surgical techniques because of the evolution and increasing sophistication of rigid internal fixation techniques, efficiency. AIM: To highlight the residual relevance, utility, and current techniques of achieving MMF in modern practice. METHODS: A rigorous search of the maxillofacial literature was undertaken to identify recent articles that discuss the techniques, usefulness, limitations, merits, demerits and cost effectiveness of MMF. A narrative review of the selected literature was done to provide concise and current evidence on MMF in modern maxillofacial surgery. The cost effectiveness of MMF as a modality in the treatment of maxillofacial fractures is also compared with that of open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF). RESULTS: MMF is employed as temporary intraoperative adjunct to rigid fixation techniques or as a supplement for postoperative stabilization after semi-rigid fixation. It is a adequate and more cost effective method in some types of mandibular fractures. Other indications are patients' refusal of open surgery, refusal of hardware insertion and lack of medical fitness for extensive surgical operation. Many innovative techniques of achieving MMF are now available and are in this article, categorized into MMF with direct wiring techniques, MMF with inter-arch straight tie wires or elastics, and MMF with Special devices. CONCLUSION: In spite of the growing enthusiasm for ORIF, MMF remains a relevant technique in maxillofacial surgery and in some cases are more cost effective than rigid internal fixation.

The assessment of the short- and long-term changes in the condylar position following sagittal split ramus osteotomy (SSRO) with rigid fixation.

The purpose of this study was to compare the short- and long-term changes in condylar position related to the glenoid fossa, and skeletal and occlusal stability after orthognathic surgery. All of the study patients were assessed by cone-beam computed tomography images for condylar rotational changes and anteroposterior position in the pre-surgery, post-surgery and post-retention period. The condylar positions were evaluated on three planes: axial, coronal and sagittal. In the skeletal and occlusal measurements, there was no significant difference between the post-surgery group and the post-retention group. After sagittal split ramus osteotomy (SSRO), the condyle on the axial plane rotated inward (P < 0.05) and maintained during the post-retention period. In the anteroposterior condylar position related to the glenoid fossa, the condyles had changed from the anterior position in the pre-surgery group to a concentric position in the post-surgery group and then returned to the anterior position in the post-retention groups. These results suggested that the changed anteroposterior condylar position in the glenoid fossa after SSRO with rigid fixation had moved from a concentric to anterior position for post-retention period.

Do the benefits of rigid internal fixation of mandible fractures justify the added costs? Results from a randomized controlled trial.

PURPOSE: Owing to its putative advantages over conventional maxillomandibular fixation (MMF), open-reduction and rigid internal fixation (ORIF) is used frequently to treat mandible fractures, particularly in noncompliant patients. The resource-intensive nature of ORIF, the large variation in its use, and the lack of systematic studies substantiating ORIF attributed benefits compel a randomized controlled investigation comparing ORIF to MMF treatment. The objective of this study was to determine whether ORIF provides better clinical and functional outcomes than MMF in noncomplying type of patients with a similar range of mandible fracture severity. PATIENTS AND METHODS: From a total of 336 patients who sought treatment for mandible fractures, 142 patients with moderately severe mandible fractures were assigned randomly to receive MMF or ORIF and followed prospectively for 12 months. A variety of clinician and patient-reported measures were used to assess outcomes at the 1, 6, and 12 months follow-up visits. These measures included clinician-reported number of surgical complications, patient-reported number of complaints, as well as cumulative costs of treatment. Pain intensity was measured on a 10-point scale and the 12-item General Oral Health Assessment Index was used to assess the patients' oral health-related quality of life. Because the protocol allowed clinical judgment to overrule the randomly assigned treatment, outcomes were compared on an "intent-to-treat" basis as well as in terms of actual treatment received. RESULTS: The sociodemographic and clinical characteristics of the injury did not differ among the 2 groups. On an intent-to-treat basis, the difference in complication rates was not significant but favored MMF; 8.1% of patients developed complications with MMF versus 12.5% with ORIF. Differences in the rate of patient complaints were not significant on an intent-to-treat basis, but a significant between-group difference (P = .012) favoring MMF was noted on an as-treated basis at the 1 month recall, with 40% of ORIF patients reporting greater than 1 complaint versus 18.8% of MMF patients. No significant differences were detected between the 2 treatment groups at any time point with respect to oral health-related quality of life reflected by the General Oral Health Assessment Index scores. In-patient days and total costs did not differ significantly on an intent-to-treat basis, but on an as-treated basis, patients treated with MMF had fewer in-patient days on average (1.64 vs 5.50 for ORIF) and lower average costs of treatment ($7,206 vs $26,089 for ORIF). In the intent-to-treat analyses, patients receiving MMF treatment had significantly lower (P = .05) pain scores at the 12-month recall (mean = 0.58, SE = 0.30) compared with patients assigned to ORIF (mean = 1.78, SE = 0.52). CONCLUSION: Our study did not show a clear overall benefit of the resource-intensive ORIF over conventional MMF treatment in the management of moderately severe mandible fractures in at-risk patients; our data instead suggest some cost as well as oral health quality-of-life advantages for the use of MMF in this patient population.