Management of Mandible Fractures

Stacey, D Heath; Doyle, John F.; Mount, Delora L.; Snyder, Mary C.; Gutowski, K.A.

doi:10.1097/01.prs.0000209392.85221.0b

Cited by 124 publications

(79 citation statements)

References 52 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…12,23,24,25 Many authors reported the angle as the most frequently affected site, 4,6,13,24 whereas others reported this to be the mandible body 5,10,20 and symphysis. 4,22 In this sample, the condyle was the most frequently affected site (28%).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 97%

A retrospective study of mandibular fracture in a 40-month period

Matos

Arnez

Sverzut

et al. 2010

International Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery

111

126

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 97%

A retrospective study of mandibular fracture in a 40-month period

Matos

Arnez

Sverzut

et al. 2010

International Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery

111

126

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…18,19 The fractures of the mandibular condyle are better appreciated in sagittal plane, while 3-D reconstructions ( Figure 3) are extremely useful in planning surgical management. [18][19][20] The sensitivity of multidetector computed tomography (MDCT) to detect mandibular fracture are 100% whereas orthopanoramic radiograph and conventional x-rays had only 86% sensitivity. 16 Multidetector computed tomography (MDCT) is the investigation of choice and is the most appropriate imaging modality to evaluate patients of maxillofacial trauma.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Multidetector computed tomographic evaluation of maxillofacial trauma

et al. 2014

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Introduction: Maxillofacial injuries are one of the most frequently encountered entities accounting for a large proportion of patients in emergency department. Present study was performed to assess the role of multidetector computed tomography (MDCT) in patients of maxillofacial trauma and to describe the spectrum of various patterns of injuries in maxillofacial region in this part of Nepal. Methods: The study was carried out on a prospective basis over a period of one year. All the patients referred for evaluation of maxillofacial trauma were included in the study. MDCT was done in patients of maxillofacial injury and the data was recorded and analyzed. Volumetric MDCT scan of the maxillofacial region was performed in axial plane with multiplanar reconstruction in coronal and sagittal planes were obtained wherever required. Results: Out of 60 patients of maxillofacial trauma 42 (70%) were males and 18 (30%) were females and age ranges from 12 to 70 years. The 11?30 years age group has the highest percentage (55%) of maxillofacial trauma, followed by 31?40 (20%). The common cause of injuries in our study was road traffic accidents (58.33%), fall from height (20%), physical assault (16.66%) and sport injuries (5%). Out of 60 patients there was total of 115 fractures. The frequency and types of fracture was as follows: orbital floor fracture in 21 (35%), maxillary sinus wall fracture in 18 (30%), nasal bone fracture in 17 (28.33%), jaw fracture in 15 (25%), zygomatic bone fracture in 13 (21.66%), orbital wall fracture in 11 (18.33%), naso?ethmoidal fractures in 9 (15%), frontal sinus fracture in 7 (11.66%), Lefort fracture in 1 (1.66%) and others 3 (5%). The highest percentage of fracture was of orbital floor (35%) followed by fracture of wall of maxillary sinus (30%) and nasal bone fracture (28.33%). Three cases had simultaneous injury of the globe and cervical spine; they underwent computed tomography/magnetic resonance imaging for the assessment of spine. Conclusion: Injuries to maxillofacial region is one of the most common emergency requiring accurate and early diagnosis for preventing unnecessary investigations and proper management. MDCT has high sensitivity and specificity and has high accuracy for detection of fracture. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.3126/ajms.v5i4.9561 Asian Journal of Medical Sciences 2014 Vol.5(4); 39-43

show abstract

“…Complications that may arise as a result of mandible fracture repair include wound infection, malocclusion, nonunion, malunion, tooth loss, trismus, ankylosis, deviation, scars, paraesthesias, failed procedures, re-operation, hardware removal, chronic pain and functional deficit. [25][26][27][28] It also causes significant economic expense secondary to procedural costs and patient time off work and associated income loss. The association between reduced quality of life and facial trauma is well known.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Mandible fracture severity may be increased by alcohol and interpersonal violence

O’Meara

Witherspoon

Hapangama

et al. 2011

Australian Dental Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Alcohol as a cofactor in interpersonal violence (IPV) has been established by studies from a number of countries. This study aimed to determine if alcohol was a cofactor in the incidence or severity of mandible fracture. Methods: A prospective study of mandible fracture patients presenting for oral maxillofacial review over 16 months was completed. Injury severity was assessed utilizing the Mandible Injury Severity Score (MISS). Results: A total of 252 facial trauma cases presented to our tertiary referral centre, 83 with fractures of the mandible. The majority of presentations were secondary to IPV (n = 54, 65.06%), 49 (90.74%) of these cases involved alcohol. Overall, alcohol was involved in 63.85% of cases (n = 53). The relative risk of requiring surgical intervention with alcohol involvement was 2.68 (CI = 1.11-9.47). Alcohol significantly increased facial fracture severity for MISS: alcohol (n = 53) 13.07 ± 5.01, no alcohol (n = 30) 11.03 ± 4.87 (p < 0.05). IPV also increased facial fracture severity for MISS: IPV (n = 54) 13.09 ± 4.90, non-IPV (n = 29) 11.00 ± 4.81 (p < 0.05). The angle of the mandible was most commonly fractured (40.5% of cases). Conclusions: Mandible fracture patients, whose injury is a result of IPV, have more severe fractures and a higher likelihood of requiring surgery if alcohol is involved. This correlates to a higher surgical workload, economic and social burden to the community. Primary alcohol and IPV prevention strategies will play an important role in reducing mandible fracture.

show abstract

Management of Mandible Fractures

Abstract: The authors review the diagnosis and current trends in management of mandible fractures.

Cited by 124 publications

References 52 publications

A retrospective study of mandibular fracture in a 40-month period

A retrospective study of mandibular fracture in a 40-month period

Multidetector computed tomographic evaluation of maxillofacial trauma

Mandible fracture severity may be increased by alcohol and interpersonal violence

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About