Suchawadee Boonyawanit

Suwit Singsorn

Thanasak Chengsuntisuk

Natthapong Thamapukdee

Keywords :

mandibular fracture, locking plate 2.0, miniplate 2.0

Abstract :

The objective of the study was to study demographic data, clinical data, the use of fixation
device, and outcome of open reduction and internal fixation relationship for mandibular fracture
between locking plate 2.0 mm and miniplate 2.0 mm system in mandibular fracture patients at
Khon Kaen Regional Hospital (KKH). The sample group was the patients having mandibular fracture
in KKH from January 1, 2014-March 31, 2021. The data were collected from Oral and Maxillofacial
Surgery Department. Descriptive statistics were employed. Its factor relationship was confirmed
by chi-squared test and Fisher’s exact test. For the results, a total of 73 patients from 293 mandi-
bular fracture patients met inclusion criteria. The ratio between male to female ratio was 6.3 : 1.
The majority of participants aged between 20-29 years. The statistical difference on gender and
age of two groups was not significant at 95% confidence interval (p > 0.05). In terms of behavior
risk factors, 60.3% of participants drank alcohol. The two groups had no significant statistical
difference with confidence level lower than 0.05 (p > 0.05). Most of bone had single fracture line
(57.5%). Bone fracture was at symphysis (58.9%) followed by angle (28.8%). Extraoral surgical
method was used by 60.3%. Postoperative MMF standing at 74.0% was found in 2.0 mm miniplate
which was more than that in 2.0 mm locking plate. This revealed significant statistical difference.
There was no significant statistical difference on demographic and clinical data in relation to bone
metal plate. Complications after treatment were found in 4 cases (5.5%). Three cases of wound
infection occurred i.e., 2 occurred in locking plate group, and 1 in miniplate group. One compli-
cation was wound dehiscence which was in miniplate group. All of complications were minor. In
comparing treatment between locking plate 2.0 and miniplate 2.0 using Fisher’s exact test, their
complication after treatment had no statistical difference (p > 0.05).
Treating fracture of the mandible with locking plate 2.0 and miniplate 2.0 had not produced
complications which were significantly different. Thus, factors relevant to complexity of the fracture
location, patient’s risk behavior, patient’s socioeconomic status, and availability of surgical instru
ments should be considered before making decision on types of bone metal plate.

References :

Murray JM. Mandible fractures and dental trauma. Emerg
Med Clin North Am. 2013;31:553-73.

Kruger E, Tennant M. Fractures of the mandible and
maxilla: a 10 year analysis. Australas Med J. 2016;9:17-
24.

Hansasuta C. Facial bone fracture: a study of 612 cases.
Thai J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 1992;6:5-9.

Kangvonkit P, Thearachote P. Facial bone fracture: a
study of 1415 cases. Thai J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 1995;9:
3-7.

Thearachote P, Kangvonkit P. Maxillofacial Injuries in
Chonburi Hospital: a study of 2478 cases. Thai J Oral
Maxillofac Surg. 2003;17:99-106.

Boonkasem S, Tharanon W. Maxillofacial injuries at Khon
Kaen Hospital: a review of 342 cases. Thai J Oral Maxil-
lofac Surg. 1995;9:8-13.

Bunchaleow N. Maxillofacial injuries in Surin Hospital: a
study in 2997 cases. Thai J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2005;
19:75-9.

Janvanissthaporn K. Mandibular fractures: a study at
Suratthani Regional Hospital. Thai J Oral Maxillofac Surg.
2009;23:38-49.

Juthakitti C. Clinical outcomes in the treatment of man-
dibular fractures using Thai mini-plates and screws: a
prospective study. Thai J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2014;28:
24-32.

Champy M, Lodde JP, Schmitt R. Mandible osteosynthesis
by miniature screwed plates via buccal approach. J Oral
Maxillofac Surg. 1978;6:14-21.

Cawood JI. Small plate osteosynthesis of mandible frac-
ture. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 1985;23:77-91.

Sauerbier S, Kuenz J, Hauptmann S, Hoogendijk CF,
Liebehenschel N, Schön R, et al. Clinical aspects of a 2.0
mm locking plate system for mandibular fracture surgery.
J Craniomaxillofac Surg. 2010;38:501-4.

Sauerbier S, Scho NR, Otten JE, Schmelzeisen R, Gutwald
R. The development of plate and screw osteosynthesis
for the treatment of mandibular fractures e literature
review. J Craniomaxillofac Surg. 2008;36:251-9.

Ellis E 3rd, Graham J. Use of a 2.0 mm locking plate/screw
system for mandibular fracture surgery. J Oral Maxillo-
fac Surg. 2002;60:642-5.

Gutwald R, Alpert B, Schmelzeisen R. Principle and stability
of locking plates. Keio J Med. 2003;52:21-4.

Wusiman P, Tuerxun J, Yaolidaxi B, Moming A. Locking
plate system versus standard plate fixation in the man-
agement of mandibular fractures: meta-analysis of ran-
domized controlled trials. J Craniofac Surg. 2017;28:
1456-61.

Wusiman P, Taxifulati D, Weidong L, Moming A. Three-
dimensional versus standard miniplate, lag screws versus
miniplate, locking plate versus non-locking miniplates:
managemenr of mandibular fracture, a systematic review
and meta-analysis. J Craniofac Surg. 2019;14:66-80.

Daniel WW. Biostatistics: a foundation of analysis in the
health sciences. 6th ed. New York: John Wiley & Sons; 1995.

Haug RH, Street CC, Goltz M. Does plate adaptation affect
stability? A biomechanical comparison of locking and
nonlocking plates. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2002;60:1319-
26.

Chiodo TA, Ziccardi VB, Jana IM, Sabitini C. Failure strength
of 2.0 locking versus 2.0 conventional Synthes mandibu-
lar plates: a laboratory model. J Oral Maxillofac Surg.
2006;64:1475-9.

Camino JR, Moraes RB, Landes C, Luz JGC. Comparison
of a 2.0-mm locking system with conventional 2.0- and
2.4-mm systems in the treatment of mandibular fractures:
a randomized controlled trial. Oral Maxillofac Surg.
2017;21:327-34.

Yang L, Patil PM. Comparative evaluation of 2.0 mm lock-
ing plate system vs 2.0 mm non-locking plate system
for mandibular angle fracture fixation: a prospective ran-
domized study. Eur Rev Med Pharmacol Sci. 2015;19:
552-6.

Collins CP, Leonard GP, Tolas A, Alcalde R. A prospective
randomized clinical trial comparing 2.0-mm locking plates
to 2.0-mm standard plates in treatment of mandible
fractures. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2004;62:1392-5.

Zhan S, Jiang Y, Cheng Z, Ye J. A meta-analysis comparing
the 2.0-mm locking plate system with the 2.0-mm non
locking plate system in treatment of mandible fractures.
J Craniofac Surg. 2014;25:2094-7.