2012
DOI: 10.1016/j.joms.2012.06.165
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Poster 109: Mandibular Angle Fractures, Single Versus Two-Plate Fixation; UAB Experience

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1

Citation Types

0
3
0

Year Published

2016
2016
2017
2017

Publication Types

Select...
2

Relationship

0
2

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 2 publications
(3 citation statements)
references
References 0 publications
0
3
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Conversely, some of the literature has reported no relevant difference in rates of infection for 1-versus 2-plate techniques. 1 Mehra and Haitham 29 noted that the use of fewer plates results in less periosteal stripping, which can lead to less blood supply disruption, and decreased operating time, which can decrease the rate of postoperative infections. A recent prospective study on MAFs found that the use of a strut plate at the angle had relatively less or no postoperative complications compared with other techniques.…”
Section: Effect Of Methods Of Fixation On Patient Comfortmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Conversely, some of the literature has reported no relevant difference in rates of infection for 1-versus 2-plate techniques. 1 Mehra and Haitham 29 noted that the use of fewer plates results in less periosteal stripping, which can lead to less blood supply disruption, and decreased operating time, which can decrease the rate of postoperative infections. A recent prospective study on MAFs found that the use of a strut plate at the angle had relatively less or no postoperative complications compared with other techniques.…”
Section: Effect Of Methods Of Fixation On Patient Comfortmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Mandibular angle fractures (MAFs) are among the most common maxillofacial injuries; they are associated with the highest complication rates of all mandibular fractures, yielding an incidence as high as 32%. [1][2][3][4] These fractures are frequently associated with facial lacerations (32%), cervical spine injuries (2 to 10%), orthopedic injuries (20%), neurologic injury (24%), and thoracic and abdominal injuries (12%). [5][6][7][8][9] The MAF is defined as a fracture line that begins where the anterior border of the mandibular ramus meets the body of the mandible and extends inferiorly through the inferior border or posteriorly toward the gonial angle.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Failure to achieve these conditions of healing results in infection, malocclusion, nonunion, or malunion [6][7][8][9]. Mandibular angle fractures are associated with the highest complication rates of all mandibular fractures, yielding an incidence as high as 32% [12][13][14][15]. Various techniques for treatment of mandibular angle fractures have been described in the literature; open reduction with non-rigid fixation by means of trans-osseous wires, cicum-mandibular wires, or small positional bone plates; AO reconstruction plates; dynamic compression plates; mini-dynamic compression plates; lag screws; and non-compression plates.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%