3-D Miniplates Versus Conventional Miniplates in Treatment of Mandible Fractures

Abstract

Aim

To study whether the use of 3-D miniplate, when compared with conventional miniplate, gives better clinical outcomes with fewer complications in patients with fracture mandible.

Materials and Methods

A prospective study was conducted in the Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Trauma Care Centre, on 40 patients. They were randomly divided into Group-I and Group-II with 20 patients in each group. In Group-I, 3-D miniplate was used and in Group-II, conventional miniplate was used. Parameters such as fracture stability, occlusal status, mouth opening, nerve paresthesia, infection, pain, swelling, and complications were evaluated on 1st, 7th postoperative day, 1st month and 3rd month.

Results

Fracture stability and occlusion were clinically better in Group-I than in Group-II on each follow-up; however, it was not statistically significant. Infection rate was lesser in Group-I than in Group-II (p = 0.003). Mouth opening was more in Group-II than in Group-I on immediate (p = 0.001) and 7th post-op day (p = 0.002). Overall complications were lesser in Group-I than in Group-II (p > 0.005).

Conclusion

There is no major difference observed in clinical outcomes between 3-D miniplate and conventional miniplate. Either method of fixation can be used successfully in treatment of mandible fractures with comparable rates of complications.