Treatment and complications of mandibular fractures: A 10-year analysis

Bergh, Bart van den; Heymans, Martijn W.; Duvekot, Freya; Forouzanfar, Tymour

doi:10.1016/j.jcms.2011.05.015

Cited by 64 publications

(27 citation statements)

References 30 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The data from our cohort study are consistent with other large retrospective studies from Germany, Scotland, the Netherlands, Boston, and Iowa. 6,[11][12][13][14] Similar to these studies, interpersonal violence accounted for the majority of isolated mandibular fractures [11][12][13] but was found to be even higher (73%) in our cohort. In our data there are lower representations of higher-mechanism and complex injuries because the initial search criteria used the primary International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision codes for mandibular fractures.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 88%

The Financial Burden of Mandibular Trauma

Dillon¹,

Christensen²,

McDonald³

et al. 2012

Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 88%

The Financial Burden of Mandibular Trauma

Dillon¹,

Christensen²,

McDonald³

et al. 2012

Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Thus, reduction and fixation of nonYtooth-bearing fractures is facilitated, but poses a greater risk of complications. 29 The surgeon in this case does not have the occlusal help guide; thus, the tooth-bearing fracture reduction and the subsequent fixation may be imperfect. This may explain the higher incidence of disocclusion and pseudarthrosis in group B patients.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 94%

Bifocal Mandibular Fractures

Orabona

İaconetta²,

Abbate³

et al. 2012

Journal of Craniofacial Surgery

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Fractures of the mandible have been reported to account between 40% and 62% of all facial fractures. Most surveys show that just under 50% are isolated, the same amount are doubly fractured. This study aims to clarify, according to our experience, the correct surgical sequence which should be followed in order to treat bifocal mandibular fractures. From January 2004 to January 2009, we have conducted a retrospective study on a sample of patients operated on in our department because of bifocal mandibular fractures. We include only those cases in which the jaw was fractured in 2 places, in particular patients who suffer a fracture in tooth-bearing areas (symphysis, parasymphysis, and anterior body) and also contralaterally in non-tooth-bearing areas (posterior body, angle, ramus, and condyle). The sample was divided into 2 groups based on the fracture sequence of reduction. At 1-year follow-up, the group of patients who received first the tooth-bearing fractured areas treatment, followed by treatment of non-tooth-bearing fractured area on bifocal mandibular fracture, showed less postoperative complications and reduced surgical time and costs. It is recommended from this study that reduction of the tooth-bearing fragment be prior to that of the tooth-free fragment for the bifocal mandible.

show abstract

“…Malocclusion rates for mandibular fractures ranged from approximately 3.4 to 6.7% when using techniques as arch bars. 6,32 With IMFSs averaging approximately 15 minutes to apply, all studies showed a decrease in operative time compared with the average of 45 minutes for the arch bar appliance. 5,11,17,30 Oral hygiene is easier to maintain when less hardware is covering the teeth, resulting in better oral hygiene scores for IMFSs compared with arch bars or interdental wiring.…”

Section: Mucosa Overgrowthmentioning

confidence: 93%