Comparison of 3-D Plates and Conventional Miniplates in the Management of Symphysis and Parasymphysis Fracture of the Mandible: A Single-Blinded Randomized Controlled Trial

Aminah Khan; Chaudry Muhammad  Usman; Muhammad  Afzal; Hafiz Abubakar  Ghufran; Muhammad Wasi Ullah  Khan; Maliha  Lateef

doi:10.51253/pafmj.v75i6.13405

Authors

Aminah Khan Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, 30 Military Dental Center/Combined Military Hospital Peshawar/National University of Medical Sciences (NUMS) Pakistan
Chaudry Muhammad Usman Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, 30 Military Dental Center/Combined Military Hospital Peshawar/National University of Medical Sciences (NUMS) Pakistan
Muhammad Afzal Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, 30 Military Dental Center/Combined Military Hospital Peshawar/National University of Medical Sciences (NUMS) Pakistan
Hafiz Abubakar Ghufran Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, 30 Military Dental Center/Combined Military Hospital Peshawar/National University of Medical Sciences (NUMS) Pakistan
Muhammad Wasi Ullah Khan Department of Pharmacology, Army Medical College/National University of Medical Sciences (NUMS), Rawalpindi Pakistan
Maliha Lateef Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, 30 Military Dental Center/Combined Military Hospital Peshawar/National University of Medical Sciences (NUMS) Pakistan

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.51253/pafmj.v75i6.13405

Keywords:

Mandibular Fractures, Maxillofacial Injuries, Open Fracture Reduction, Oral Surgical Procedures

Abstract

Objective: To compare the surgical outcome and postoperative complications of symphysis and parasymphysis fractures in 3-D and conventional miniplating systems.

Study Design: Randomized Controlled Trial.

Place and Duration of Study: Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Combined Military Hospital, Peshawar Pakistan, from Aug 2023 to Sep 2024.

Methodology: According to the inclusion criteria, 33 patients were eligible who were then divided into two groups. The anterior mandible fractures in Group A (n=17) were treated with 3-D mini plates, and those in Group B (n=16) were treated with conventional mini plates.

Results: Demographic characteristics were compared but none were found to be statistically significant. Out of enrolled 33(58.0%) patients, were randomized into two groups: 17(27.4%) in Group A (3-D plating) and 16(25.8%) in Group B (conventional miniplates). The results observed were not statistically significant for stability, pain, and wound dehiscence in three consecutive follow-up visits (p-value>0.05). However, malocclusion, evident on the first postoperative day in 4(25.0%) patients of Group B, was found to be statistically significant (0.027).

Conclusion: Better surgical outcomes and minimal postoperative complications were noted among patients offered 3-D plates compared to conventional miniplates and appreciable results were noted, especially in achieving satisfactory occlusion.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

1. Yuen HW, Hohman MH, Mazzoni T. Mandible fracture. In: StatPearls [Internet]. Treasure Island (FL): StatPearls Publishing; 2023. Available from:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK507705/

2. El Nakeeb NA, El Dibany MM, Shokry MM. A comparative study between 3-D plates and conventional miniplates for internal fixation of anterior mandible fractures. Alex Dent J 2016; 41(3): 253-260.

https://doi.org/10.21608/adjalexu.2016.58036

3. Kanala S, Gudipalli S, Perumalla P, Jagalanki K, Polamarasetty PV, Guntaka S, et al. Aetiology, prevalence, fracture site and management of maxillofacial trauma. Ann R Coll Surg Engl 2021; 103(1): 18-22.

https://doi.org/10.1308/rcsann.2020.0171

4. Bell RB, Thompson L, Amundson M. Contemporary management of mandible fractures. In: Miloro M, Ghali GE, Larsen PE, Waite PD, editors. Peterson’s principles of oral and maxillofacial surgery. 3rd ed. Shelton (CT): People’s Medical Publishing House; 2022: 581-647.

5. Homsi N, Rodrigues P, Aniceto GS, Hammer B, Bartlett S. Biomechanics of the mandible. AO CMF surgery reference. Available from:

https://surgeryreference.aofoundation.org/cmf/trauma/mandible/further-reading/biomechanics-of-the-mandible

6. Luhr HG. Vitallium Luhr systems for reconstructive surgery of the facial skeleton. Otolaryngol Clin North Am 1987; 20(3): 573-606.

7. Sadhwani BS, Anchlia S. Conventional 2.0 mm miniplates versus 3-D plates in mandibular fractures. Ann Maxillofac Surg 2013; 3(2): 154-159.

https://doi.org/10.4103/2231-0746.119231

8. Farmand M, Dupoirieux L. The value of 3-dimensional plates in maxillofacial surgery. Rev Stomatol Chir Maxillofac 1992; 93: 353-357.

9. Balani A, Saroj P, Kharsan V, Karan A, Mazhar H, Awasthy A. Management of mandibular angle and body fractures using miniplates and 3D plates. Bioinformation 2024; 20: 605-609.

https://doi.org/10.6026/973206300200605

10. Pir U, Khattak H, Sohail M, Shah S, Khan A, Zaman R, et al. Comparison of 3-D and standard miniplates fixation in the management of angle fracture of the mandible. J Khyber Coll Dent 2024; 14: 11-15.

https://doi.org/10.33279/jkcd.v14i2.180

11. Subramaniyan D, Sathyanarayanan R, Suresh V, Subramaniyan M, Venugopalan G, Guna TP. A comparative study evaluating the efficacy of 2.0-mm mini locking plate and 2.0-mm three-dimensional locking miniplates in mandibular angle fractures. Formosan J Surg 2021; 54(2): 61-65.

https://doi.org/10.4103/fjs.fjs_36_20

12. Rudderman RH, Mullen RL. Biomechanics of the facial skeleton. Clin Plast Surg 1992; 19(1): 11-29.

13. Bhatt V, Motiwale T, Mitra GV. Evaluation of the efficacy of three-dimensional mini plates versus conventional mini plates used in the management of anterior mandibular fractures. IP Indian J Orthod Dentofac Res 2022; 8(3): 198-208.

https://doi.org/10.18231/j.ijodr.2022.034

14. Kumar BP, Kumar KA, Venkatesh V, Mohan AP, Ramesh K, Mallikarjun K. Study of efficacy and the comparison between 2.0 mm locking plating system and 2.0 mm standard plating system in mandibular fractures. J Maxillofac Oral Surg 2015; 14(3): 799-807.

https://doi.org/10.1007/s12663-014-0718-5

15. Doshi J, Patel C, Prajapati KJ, Modi D, Shah D, Patel M. A comparative study of three dimensional stainless steel plate versus two dimensional stainless steel miniplate in the management of mandibular symphysis and parasymphysis fracture. Nat J Integr Res Med 2018; 9(3): 14-20.

https://doi.org/10.70284/njirm.v9i3.2345

16. Liu Y, Wei B, Li Y, Gu D, Yin G, Wang B, et al. The 3-dimensional miniplate is more effective than the standard miniplate for the management of mandibular fractures: A meta-analysis. Eur J Med Res 2017; 22(1): 5.

https://doi.org/10.1186/s40001-017-0244-2

17. Ellis E, Schubert W. ORIF, strut plate, symphysis and parasymphysis, simple. AO CMF surgery reference. Available from:

https://surgeryreference.aofoundation.org/cmf/trauma/mandible/symphysis-and-parasymphysis-simple/orif-strut-plate

18. Silajiding K, Wusiman P, Yusufu B, Moming A. Three dimensional versus standard miniplate fixation in the management of mandibular fractures: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Kaohsiung J Med Sci 2017; 33(9): 464-472. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.kjms.2017.05.001

19. Aurora JK, Tiwari S, Dubey KN, Tandon P, Chauhan H, Srivastava AP, et al. Conventional versus 3D plates for mandibular anterior region fractures: A comparative study. Traumaxilla 2019; 1(2-3): 49-56.

https://doi.org/10.1177/26323273211070523