Abstract
AIM: To biomechanically analyze two fixation techniques in polyurethane hemi-mandibular body fractures, using a universal testing machine. METHODS: The study employed 10 polyurethane hemi-mandible replicas, which simulated simple fractures of the mandibular body, divided into two groups: one group comprised 5 hemi-mandibles with two 2.0 mm system plates in the tension and compression zones, while the other group contained 5 hemi-mandibles with an Erich bar and a 2.0 mm system plate in the tension and neutral zones, respectively. Data were analyzed statistically by the Student's t-test (α=0.05) RESULTS: The test results indicated that the fixation using 2.0 mm system plates offered significantly more resistance to the loads and presented significantly larger displacement compared to the fixation using just one 2.0 mm system plate and the Erich bar. CONCLUSIONS: It may be concluded that the use of two plates in the 2.0 mm system had greater mechanical strength than a single 2.0 mm plate combined with an Erich bar. Clinically, it is known that both techniques can provide good results, but patients receiving the combination of Erich bar and one plate are required to be more cooperative during the postoperative period, especially with respect to the prescribed diet in order to avoid failures in this system.
mandibular fractures; bone plates; internal fixation of fractures
-
1Martini MZ, Takahashi A, Oliveira Neto HG, Carvalho Júnior JP, Curcio R, Shinohara EH. Epidemiology of Mandibular Fractures Treated in a Brazilian Level I Trauma Public Hospital in the City of São Paulo, Brazil. Braz Dent J. 2006; 17: 243-8.
-
2Atilgan S, Erol B, Yaman F, Yilmaz N, Ucan MC. Mandibular fractures: a comparative analysis between young and adult patients in the southeast region of Turkey. J Appl Oral Sci. 2010; 18: 17-22.
-
3Peterson JL, Ellis III E, Hupp JR, Tucker MR. Contemporary oral and maxillofacial surgery. 4th ed. Saint Louis: Mosby; 2002.
-
4Fonseca RJ, Marciani RD, Turvey TA. Oral and maxillofacial surgery. 2nd ed. Saint Louis: Saunder Elsevier; 2009. v.2.
-
5Sauerbier S, Schön R, Otten JE, Schmelzeisen R, Gutwald RJ. The development of plate osteosynthesis for the treatment of fractures of the mandibular body and a literature review. J Craniomaxillofac Surg. 2008; 36: 251-9.
-
6Ellis III E. Treatment methods for fractures of the mandibular angle. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 1999; 28: 243-52.
-
7Miloro M, Ghali EG, Larsen EP, Waite DP. Peterson's principles of oral and maxillofacial surgery. Hamilton: BC Decker; 2004.
-
8Ellis III E. Use of Lag Screws for Fractures of the Mandibular Body. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 1996; 54: 1314-6.
-
9Ramalho RA, Araújo FAC, Santos FSM, Caubi AF, Sobreira T. Management of the mandible fracture: miniplates and screws vs. lag screws - case report. Rev Cir Traumatol Buco-Maxilo-Facial. 2011; 11: 9-12.
-
10Assael AL, Klotch WD, Manson NP, Prein J, Rahn AB, Schilli W. Manual of internal fixation in the cranio-facial skeleton. Berlin: Springer-Verlag; 1998.
-
11Ellis III E. A study of 2 bone plating methods for fractures of the mandibular symphysis/body. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2011; 69: 1978-87.
-
12Haug RH, Peterson GP, Goltz M. A biomechanical evaluation of mandibular condyle fracture plating techniques. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2002; 60: 73-80.
-
13Ziccardi VB, Schneider RE, Kummer FJ, Wurzburg lag screw plate versus four hole miniplate for the treatment of condylar process fractures. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 1997; 55: 602-7.
-
14Ellis III E. Management of fractures through the angle of the mandible. Oral Maxillofacial Surg Clin N Am. 2009; 21: 163-74.
-
15Kimsal J, Baack B, Candelaria L, Khraishi T, Lovald S. Biomechanical analysis of mandibular angle fractures. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2011; 69: 3010-4.
Publication Dates
-
Publication in this collection
19 July 2013 -
Date of issue
June 2013
History
-
Received
26 Dec 2012 -
Accepted
01 Apr 2013