Postoperative infection associated with mandibular angle fracture treatment in the presence of teeth on the fracture line: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Surgical Management of Unusual Biangular Mandibular Fractures

“…There is more uniformity of view in literature about the fate of M3 as assessed by Bobrowski et al [13] systematic review and meta-analysis, although this study did not find any difference in postoperative infection rate between the group in which the tooth was removed and the one in which it was conserved. So it seems reasonable to maintain the tooth, unless there is an absolute indication for extraction as suggested by several authors [13–16] who stated that only impacted teeth with cysts or pericoronitis, teeth that prevent a correct reduction, and teeth with fractured roots and with roots exposure should be removed.…”

“…There is more uniformity of view in literature about the fate of M3 as assessed by Bobrowski et al [13] systematic review and meta-analysis, although this study did not find any difference in postoperative infection rate between the group in which the tooth was removed and the one in which it was conserved. So it seems reasonable to maintain the tooth, unless there is an absolute indication for extraction as suggested by several authors [13–16] who stated that only impacted teeth with cysts or pericoronitis, teeth that prevent a correct reduction, and teeth with fractured roots and with roots exposure should be removed. In this case we proceeded with the extraction of the left M3, which presented with a root fracture, and maintained the right M3, which had no absolute indication for extraction with no complications on either side confirming Bobrowski et al [13] result that found no statistically significative difference between group that opted for the removal and the group that opted for the maintenance of the M3 in the line of mandibular angle fractures.…”

“…So it seems reasonable to maintain the tooth, unless there is an absolute indication for extraction as suggested by several authors [13–16] who stated that only impacted teeth with cysts or pericoronitis, teeth that prevent a correct reduction, and teeth with fractured roots and with roots exposure should be removed. In this case we proceeded with the extraction of the left M3, which presented with a root fracture, and maintained the right M3, which had no absolute indication for extraction with no complications on either side confirming Bobrowski et al [13] result that found no statistically significative difference between group that opted for the removal and the group that opted for the maintenance of the M3 in the line of mandibular angle fractures. In conclusion, the management of our patient, consisting of a more rigid fixation of the most displaced angle with two miniplates, a single miniplate placed according to Champy et al on the less displaced side, and the removal of the third molar presenting fractured root, allowed us to complete a correct and stable reduction with no complications.…”

The influence of third molars in the line of mandibular angle fractures on wound and bone healing

“…Bobrowski et al conducted a systemic literature review and meta-analysis on postoperative infections associated with the treatment of mandibular angle fractures in the presence of molars in the fracture line [21]. The authors found 13 articles involving 1542 mandibular angle fractures that met their inclusion criteria and also included the studies mentioned previously.…”

A Clinical Study of Mandibular Angle Fracture

“…If completely impacted or malpositioned, disturbing reduction in the fractured segment, extraction is recommended. If there is no difficulty in reduction or the third molar is erupted, retention of third molar would be a better choice, considering the risk of infection to the extraction socket and possibility of delayed bone union [ 10 ].…”