A 7-Year Retrospective Analysis of Titanium Plates Removal Following Orthognathic Surgery

Mohamad, Nadhratul Husna; Murugesan, Ravindran; Soh, Chen Loong; Singh, Jaswinder

doi:10.1007/s12663-020-01434-8

Cited by 1 publication

(3 citation statements)

References 14 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Alpha et al [ 2 ] reported that 6.5% of the miniplates (70 out of 1066) were removed due to symptoms such as erythema, fistula, granulation tissue, hematoma, or wound dehiscence, which were classified as ‘disturbances in healing’. Similarly, Mohamed et al [ 16 ] noted plate removal due to infection, with patients showing various signs, such as sinus tracts, localized swelling, sinusitis, and superficial infections. Theodossy et al [ 11 ] observed a 15.6% removal rate, with all removed plates attributed to infections, manifesting as pain, swelling, wound dehiscence, and pus discharge.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Cheung et al [ 15 ] reported that the incidence of plate exposure for titanium miniplates was 1.02%, with 2 plates removed due to exposure, mainly in the posterior maxilla and mandibular premolar region, attributed to thin mucosa and Le Fort I cut. Mohamed et al [ 16 ] indicated that the primary reason for removal was exposure to plates (11 out of 31 plates), with no pain or infection accompanying exposure. Schmidt et al [ 13 ] reported that plates placed in the maxillary buttress region were removed due to palpation.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“… Forest plot of all selected studies showing the percentage of patients who underwent miniplate removal in both the maxilla and the mandible [ 2 , 6 , 10 , 11 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 ]. …”

Section: Figurementioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Risk Factors Contributing to Symptomatic Miniplate Removal following Orthognathic Surgery: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Jaber,

Abouseif,

Hassan

et al. 2024

JCM

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background/Objectives: The use of miniplates for stabilizing bones post orthognathic surgery has surged in popularity due to their efficacy in ensuring stability and hastening recovery. However, controversy exists regarding what should be done with these miniplates after surgery. Some surgeons advocate for their removal, while others suggest leaving them in place. This study sought to assess the frequency, causes, and potential risk factors linked with miniplate removal in orthognathic procedures. Methods: A thorough meta-analysis was conducted by scrutinizing studies from various databases including PubMed, Google Scholar, Embase, and Scopus, focusing on publications spanning from 1989 to 2023. Results: Ten studies meeting the inclusion criteria, encompassing 1603 patients, were chosen for inclusion in the meta-analysis. The male-to-female ratio varied from 0.7:1 to 4:1. Overall, 5595 miniplates were inserted, with 294 (5.3%) being subsequently removed. Primary reasons for miniplate removal included infection (161 cases, 2.9%), exposure of miniplates (34 cases, 0.6%), and palpable plates (23 cases, 0.4%). Other indications comprised pain, patient preference, and temperature sensitivity. Less frequent causes for miniplate removal included sinusitis, secondary surgery, and dental pathology. The mean duration of miniplate removal was 5.5 months, with the majority (56.1%) being removed from the mandible rather than the maxilla. In conclusion, this meta-analysis underscores the importance of miniplate removal when hardware causes complications and physical discomfort. The primary reasons for removing miniplates were infection and plate exposure, with the mandible being the most common removal site. Conclusions: These findings emphasize the need for continued monitoring to assess the fate of miniplates in orthognathic surgery and provide valuable information for future clinical decision-making.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%