Resorbable plates for the fixation of mandibular fractures: a prospective study.

PURPOSE: The hypothesis for this prospective evaluation is that resorbable plates are equal to the performance of titanium 2-mm plates, regarding healing of the fracture with bone union and restoration of function. To prove this hypothesis, specific end points will be compared with literature norms for titanium 2-mm miniplate rigid fixation. The primary end point variable for this analysis is the union of the fracture and return to normal function. Secondary end point variables included the incidence of complications such as infection, malunion with malocclusion, soft tissue dehiscence, the need for revision surgery, specific technical challenges, operative time, and the learning curve for the surgeon. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This prospective study consisted of a sequential enrollment of 50 fractures that met the inclusion criteria of having a fracture of the mandibular body, symphysis, angle, or ramus, and required an open reduction and internal fixation for stabilization and repair. The resorbable plates and screws used consisted of an amorphous injection molded copolymer of L-lactide/D-lactide/trimethylene carbonate (Inion CPS system, Tampere, Finland). Data were collated and compared with literature norms for titanium plates and also compared with nonrigid fixation data from a prospective study performed on a similar population in the same institution. RESULTS: Clinical and radiographic evaluation indicated union of all fractures at the eighth follow-up visit. Three sites (6%) noted to have clinical signs of infection were treated immediately upon presentation, with fracture union by 8 weeks. There was no need for revision surgery in this series of patients; 12 screw heads fractured during screw placement and were immediately replaced without significant fracture sequelae. CONCLUSION: Based on this limited series of patients, the hypothesis formulated for this study was validated.

Prospective evaluation of implants connected to teeth.

PURPOSE: This prospective clinical trial examined the effect on teeth and implants when rigidly or non-rigidly connected in a cross-arch model. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Thirty patients received 2 implants, 1 on each side of the mandible, and were restored with 3-unit fixed partial dentures connected either rigidly or non-rigidly to an abutment tooth. Patients were followed for at least 5 years post-restoration. RESULTS: Repeated-measures analysis revealed no significant difference in crestal bone loss at implants (rigid versus non-rigid methods). An overall significant difference (P < .001) was found comparing methods for teeth. Paired t tests revealed no significant differences in crestal bone levels for implants or teeth at the 5-year recall. Kaplan-Meier methods and the Cox proportional hazards model showed no differences between attachment methods with regard to success based on survival and bone loss criteria. During the 5-year recall period, 1 implant (rigid side) was removed. Four implants developed bone loss greater than 2 mm during the course of this trial. One tooth on the rigid side and 2 teeth on the non-rigid side had greater than 2 mm of crestal bone loss and were removed secondary to fractures. In all, 5 abutment teeth were removed, all of which had been treated with root canal therapy and fractured at the interface of the post within the tooth. There was no clear relationship of tooth fracture to attachment. Repeated-measures analysis of mobility values revealed no significant changes over the time course of this study, and paired t tests revealed no statistically significant differences between implants for mobility. Repeated-measures analysis and paired t tests for probing depth revealed no significant changes over the time course of this study. There were no significant differences in soft tissue indices for either attachment method. The percentage of patients who had measurable intrusion was 66% for the non-rigid group, and 44% for the rigid group; 25% of the non-rigid teeth had greater than 0.5 mm intrusion, compared with 12.5% for the rigid group. For the 2 time periods evaluated, there was no significant increase in intrusion over time. The non-rigid-side implant required more nonscheduled visits to treat problems than the rigid implant and the teeth. DISCUSSION: Most patients were treated successfully with rigid or non-rigid attachment of implants to teeth. CONCLUSION: The high incidence of intrusion and non-scheduled patient visits suggest that alternative treatments without connecting implants to teeth may be indicated.