Home | About us | Editorial board | Ahead of print | Current issue | Archives | Search | Submit article | Instructions | Subscribe | Advertise | Contact us |  Login 
National Journal of Maxillofacial Surgery
 
Print this page Email this page Small font sizeDefault font sizeIncrease font size
Users Online: 71
 


 
Table of Contents
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Year : 2020  |  Volume : 11  |  Issue : 1  |  Page : 98-105  

Efficacy of bioresorbable plates in the osteosynthesis of linear mandibular fractures


1 Department of Dental Surgery, Medanta Medicity, Gurugram, Haryana, India
2 Department of Dental Surgery, AIIMS, Gorakhpur, Uttar Pradesh, India
3 Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, CDER, AIIMS, New Delhi, India

Date of Submission30-Aug-2019
Date of Acceptance05-May-2020
Date of Web Publication18-Jun-2020

Correspondence Address:
Dr. Satyavrat Arya
1053/19, Faridabad - 121 002, Haryana
India
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


DOI: 10.4103/njms.NJMS_54_19

Rights and Permissions
   Abstract 


Background and Objectives: There are limited evidences available about the performance of biodegradable system in the treatment of linear mandibular fractures without the aid of postoperative maxillomandibular fixation (MMF). Hence, the present study was planned to evaluate the treatment outcomes in mandibular fractures, using 2.5 mm bioresorbable plates and screws without postoperative MMF.
Methodology: This cohort study compares both prospective and retrospective data. The prospective study treated 20 adult patients with linear mandibular fracture using bioresorbable plates and screws, without using postoperative MMF (Group 1). Retrospective data were collected from a previous published study in which patients were treated with bioresorbable plates and screws with 2 weeks postoperative MMF (Group 2) and those treated with metal plates and screws without postoperative MMF (Group 3). Group 1 patients were followed up at 2 and 4 months to evaluate the functional outcomes in terms of fracture mobility, malocclusion, pain, and soft-tissue deformity and compared with its preoperative findings. Further, the treatment outcomes of Group 1, Group 2, and Group 3 were compared among themselves at 2-month follow-up.
Results: Group 1 patients showed a significant improvement in the treatment outcomes at 2 and 4-month follow-up. In addition, when 2 months postoperative outcomes were compared among the three groups, no statistically significant difference was observed in the treatment outcomes.
Conclusion: Endpoint osteosynthesis can be achieved with the bioresorbable fixation system when used in the treatment of un-displaced linear mandibular fractures, without postoperative MMF. A minor modification of using a lower size osteotomy drill can prevent screw loosening.

Keywords: Bioresorbable plates, mandibular fracture, maxillofacial trauma, maxillomandibular fixation, screws, titanium plates


How to cite this article:
Arya S, Bhatt K, Bhutia O, Roychoudhury A. Efficacy of bioresorbable plates in the osteosynthesis of linear mandibular fractures. Natl J Maxillofac Surg 2020;11:98-105

How to cite this URL:
Arya S, Bhatt K, Bhutia O, Roychoudhury A. Efficacy of bioresorbable plates in the osteosynthesis of linear mandibular fractures. Natl J Maxillofac Surg [serial online] 2020 [cited 2020 Oct 21];11:98-105. Available from: https://www.njms.in/text.asp?2020/11/1/98/287115




   Introduction Top


With the current understanding of maxillofacial trauma, most fractures are being treated with open reduction and internal fixation. The desire for precision and predictability have led to leap and bound innovations in the field of craniomaxillofacial (CMF) implants. Today, three-dimensional (3D) printing allows us to customize implants, which are precise to millimeters.[1],[2],[3],[4],[5] This facilitates ease of handling, quality control, and higher biomechanical strength.

Perhaps, metallic plates and screws seem to be perfect for the job, but the requirement of fixation is only temporary, and removal of the implant becomes desirable in most situations.[5],[6] Thermal sensitivity, the potential effect on bony growth, migration of plates, and interferences with imaging are some of the major drawbacks of metallic CMF implants, which necessitates their retrieval after complete osteosynthesis. Medication-associated jaw necrosis in the presence of titanium CMF implants has also been reported.[7],[8]

To overcome such limitations, bioresorbable fixation system has been developed. They provide several advantages and are being considered as a reliable and effective fixation system. There were no need for implant removal, complete resorption, less postoperative pain, not much affected by extreme climate changes, minimal stress shielding effect (as they resorb over time), and qualifies them over metallic counterparts.[9],[10] Early studies of the bioresorbable system observed uneventful primary healing of fractures, with progressive degradation of the implants.[11],[12] Many recent innovations have been made since then to improve the bioresorbable fixation system.[13]

However, an inflammatory response to the by-products and lesser mechanical strength make it use questionable.[14],[15],[16],[17]

Despite all, the use of bioresorbable system is becoming common because of its ease of use, easy adaptability, safe material, and complete absorbability.[14],[15],[16],[17],[18] The challenge of its mechanical inferiority is well taken by various researchers and have concluded no statistically significant difference between Ti and bioresorbable plates and screws in osteosynthesis of mandibular fracture.[19],[20],[21],[22] However, postoperative MMF (for various durations) was used as an aid where bioresorbable fixation was applied.[20],[21],[22] This is in contrast with the AO principal of early mobilization and function.

Thus, the present study was planned to evaluate the treatment outcomes of mandibular fractures, using 2.5 mm bioresorbable plates and screws without postoperative MMF, according to the parameters of care given by the American Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons (AAOMS).

Objectives

Primary objective

The primary objective was to assess the treatment outcome of simple mandibular fractures in terms of mobility, malocclusion, pain, and paresthesia using bioresorbable plates and screws without postoperative MMF at 2 and 4-month follow-up.

Secondary objective

The secondary objective was to assess the treatment outcome of simple mandibular fractures (in terms of mobility, malocclusion, soft-tissue deformity, pain, and ability to eat hard foods) using three different methods of treatment, that is, bioresorbable plates and screws without postoperative MMF (Group 1), bioresorbable plates and screws with postoperative MMF (Group 2), and titanium plates and screws (Group 3) at the end of 2 months.

Research question

  1. Is postoperative MMF required in the osteosynthesis of linear mandibular fractures when treated with 2.5 mm bioresorbable plates and screws?
  2. Is there any significant difference in the treatment outcomes of linear mandibular fractures using three different treatment modalities (bioresorbable plates without postoperative MMF, bioresorbable plates with postoperative MMF and metallic plates)?



   Methodology Top


This cohort study was conducted in the Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Center for Dental Education and Research at All India Institute of Medical Sciences in New Delhi (India) from May 2009 to Dec 2010. The permission to conduct this study was granted by the Institute's Ethical Committee.

Based on the study objectives to compare the treatment outcomes of linear mandibular fractures using three different methods of fracture reduction and fixation, we used two types of data collection process; prospective and retrospective.

Prospective data collection (Group 1)

We enrolled 20 adult patients aged 18–60 years, who presented with linear mandibular fractures (symphysis, parasymphysis, body, or angle) to the department after taking their informed consent. This sample size was estimated on the number of such patients we expected to visit the department during the data collection period based on the previous year's medical records. Patients with mid-face trauma, comminution or bone loss, fracture more than 10 days old with or without signs of infection, condylar or subcondylar, and ASA-3 and above were excluded from the sample.

In this part of the study, we used a bioresorbable fixation system (Inion, Tempere, Finland 2.5) for treating mandibular fractures to achieve the primary endpoint of the clinical union without postoperative MMF (Group 1). An individual patient record sheet was used to collect the data. After recording the relevant baseline data (age, sex, mode of trauma, site of fracture, findings of clinical examination, and radiographic investigations), closed reduction and MMF were done for all the enrolled patients. Antibiotic and analgesics premedication were prescribed and chlorhexidine/betadine mouthwash was advised.

After completing the basic laboratory investigations, patients were posted for (Open Reduction and Internal Fixation)ORIF under general anesthesia or local anesthesia within 72 h of reporting. Both intraoral and extraoral approaches were used as per the requirement. These data were also recorded for every patient. The fracture was exposed and anatomically reduced using the standard approach. Plates were placed along the Champy's ideal lines of osteosynthesis for anterior fractures and on the lateral surface for angle fractures. The resorbable plates were preheated in water bath at 55°C for 1 min and then adapted to the fracture site with the special plate bending pliers. 2.0 mm drill bit, with a maximum speed of 2000 rpm, with copious irrigation, was used to create a minimum of two holes on either side of the fracture line followed by 2.5 mm tap. Plates were stabilized with 2.5 mm diameter screws. MMF was removed. Stability and occlusion were checked. Antibiotics with analgesics were continued for 3 postoperative days. Patients were kept on a semisolid diet for 2 weeks. Follow-up data were collected after 3, 10, 30, 60, and 120 days postoperatively [Figure 1], [Figure 2], [Figure 3], [Figure 4], [Figure 5], [Figure 6], [Figure 7], [Figure 8].
Figure 1: Preoperative occlusion (left posterior open bite)

Click here to view
Figure 2: Preoperative radiograph showing fracture at right parasymphysis and left angle (arrow)

Click here to view
Figure 3: Parasymphysis fracture

Click here to view
Figure 4: Bioresorbable plates and screws in place at parasymphysis fracture

Click here to view
Figure 5: Left mandibular angle fracture

Click here to view
Figure 6: Fixation using transbuccal instrumentation at left mandibular angle. Arrow showing bioresorbable plate in place

Click here to view
Figure 7: (a and b) Immediate postoperative occlusion and radiograph

Click here to view
Figure 8: (a and b) Four months follow-up occlusion and radiograph showing fracture segment in proper reduction

Click here to view


The postoperative data consisted of findings from clinical examination based on AAOMS parameters of care such as stable occlusion, plate exposure, segments mobility, signs and symptoms of infection, and pain using a visual analog scale. Radiographic evaluation (panorex/posteroanterior view of the mandible) was done and recorded to check for proper reduction and alignment of the lower border of the mandible, immediately and 120 days postoperatively.

Retrospective data collection (Group 2 and Group 3)

This data collection method consisted of the previously published data which used other two types of treatment methods for reducing and fixing the simple mandibular fractures. In one method, the patients were treated with bioresorbable plates and screws with 2 weeks postoperative MMF (Group 2).[19] In the other method, similar patients were treated with titanium plates and screws, without postoperative MMF (Group 3).[19]

The same patient record file was used to collect data so that we could compare the three treatment methods of simple mandibular fractures. The data were entered into Microsoft Excel and analyzed using SPSS 22.0 v software (IBM corporation).

Preoperative and postoperative variables were analyzed among the three groups; the present study (Group 1), published data with postoperative MMF (Group 2), and published data with titanium plates and screws (Group 3). Fisher's exact test was applied for the statistical analysis. For age preoperative variables, one-way ANOVA was used.


   Results Top


General characteristics of patients from whom data was collected prospectively (Group 1)

This group consisted of 20 patients (male: 19; female: 1) with a total of 25 mandibular fractures having a mean age of 32.75 years (SD 11.07; range 18–56). Of the total 20 patients, 75% (n = 15) suffered single fractures and 25% (n = 5) suffered combined fractures of the mandible, excluding condyle. There were 16% (4) displaced fractures without overriding. No bone loss or infection was observed at the time of intervention. All patients reported within 10 days of trauma. The treatment was done under local anesthesia for 80 cases (n = 16) and 20 (n = 4) were operated under general anesthesia. All the anterior mandibular fractures were approached intraorally, whereas angle fractures were approached using transbuccal technique except one which was exposed via a submandibular approach.

Comparing preoperative baseline characteristics of participants in three groups

There was no significant difference in the baseline characteristics of the three treatment groups, as shown in [Table 1] (P ≥ 0.05).
Table 1: Preoperative baseline characteristics of three treatment groups

Click here to view


Postoperative functional outcome of Group 1 patients

The postoperative functional outcomes of Group 1 patients were observed and compared based on the AAOMS parameters of care, at the end of 2 and 4 months [Table 2]. Significant reduction in the mobility and pain was noted at 2 and 4 months postoperatively. Similarly, paresthesia was reduced to zero after 4 months. One patient developed malocclusion 2 weeks postoperatively and was subjected to 8 weeks MMF. Thereby, normal occlusion was achieved by the end of the last follow-up, as shown in [Table 2].
Table 2: Postoperative findings (at 2 months and 4 months) of Group 1 compared with preoperative measures

Click here to view


Comparing the postoperative functional outcomes among the three different treatment groups at 2-month follow-up

The three treatment groups Group 1 (bioresorbable without postoperative MMF) vs. Group 2 (bioresorbable with 2 weeks postoperative MMF) vs. Group 3 (Titanium plates and screws) were compared in terms of functional outcome after 2 months postoperatively. No difference was found among the three groups in achieving a good functional outcome in terms of reducing mobility, malocclusion, soft-tissue deformity, pain, and inability to chew hard food, suggesting that all the three types of treatment modalities could achieve similar functional status by the end of 2-month follow-up [Table 3].
Table 3: Postoperative comparison among three treatment groups at 2 months postoperative

Click here to view



   Discussion Top


Early pain-free mobilization is the primary goal of fracture treatment.[23] The fixation system has been advanced form transosseous wiring to today's 3D-printed implants to match the finest requirements of biomechanics.[1],[3],[4],[5] However, the challenge of a metallic fixation system still prevails.[5],[6],[7],[8] To counter such complications, much development has been made in bioresorbable plates and screws which allows early pain-free fracture healing.[12],[24],[25],[26],[27],[28] However, their efficacy in providing stability to the fracture of high load-bearing regions such as mandibular fractures is still under research.

To counteract its weak mechanical properties, manufacturer advises (via vitro study) MMF for 3 postoperative days.[29] However, soft-tissue stabilization, bony biomechanics, and reduced bite forces (immediately after fracture) differ in real-time situation than laboratory scenarios. Various researchers have tried different timeline for post-operative MMF for various reasons.[19],[20],[21],[22],[29],[30] Perhaps, 1–2 week postoperative MMF will probably not cause “fracture disease,” but it is in contrast with the principle of early mobilization. Thus, keeping the possibilities of avoiding post-operative maxillomandibular fixation (MMF) without compromising on the stability of fracture segments, the present study was planned.

Loss of stability has always been a major concern and its incidence from the previous titanium mini plates studies ranged from 0 to 8.7.[31],[32],[33] Wood[29] and Ferretti[21] in their study used 4 weeks of postoperative MMF with bioresorbable plates and screws and found no case of nonunion at the end of the study. Similarly, Bayat et al.,[22] Laughlin et al.,[20] and Group 2 of the present study[19] used MMF for 2 weeks postoperatively with 0–5 of early malocclusion with satisfactory performance of the bioresorbable material in terms of stability. In the present study, no malocclusion was found either at the 1st week or on subsequent follow-ups, without the aid of postoperative MMF, although some minor occlusion discrepancies were observed on initial follow-ups, which got corrected by its own.

It seems that the less rigid biodegradable implants allow a minimal but smooth settling of the occlusion while at the same time providing a stable reduction of the fracture. Leonhardt et al.[34] also used the bioresorbable system without MMF. However, in contrast to our findings, they found malocclusion in 40 patients at the 1st postoperative week, for which MMF was given for 1 week. No malocclusion was found at 24-week follow-up. This difference could be because of the lesser number of angle fractures in the present study (40) as compared to Leonhardt study (60). Angle fractures are been reported with most complications.[35] Furthermore, 32 cases in Leonhardt study were displaced and overlapped which is in contrast to the present study. Thus, it could be inferred that the 2.5 mm bioresorbable plates and screws can be used in linear un-displaced mandibular fractures predictably to achieve endpoint osteosynthesis.

The incidence of initial fracture mobility ranges up to 4%.[19],[20],[22] One patient in the present study developed malocclusion 2 weeks postoperatively due to plate fracture. Such implant failure could have been appreciated on panorama by locating displaced screw holes and discontinuity of the lower border of the mandible [Figure 9]. This could be attributed to the heavy perioral musculature of the patient which produced forces above the biomechanical strength of the plate. For this patient, 8 weeks of rigid MMF restored preinjury occlusion and bony union. However, the rest of the present study patients achieved endpoint bony union without postoperative MMF. This is further supported by similar studies which did not use postoperative MMF, and all fractures healed both clinically and radiologically.[36],[37]
Figure 9: The lines drawn at the screw holes are unparallel, suggesting a fracture of the plate. The arrow shows the displaced fracture segment

Click here to view


Various incidences of infection and wound dehiscence have been reported by various authors while using both metal and bioresorbable fixation system as a treatment modality [Table 4].[19],[21],[38],[39] In these reports, most complications were observed when bioresorbable plates were used in the treatment of angle fracture. This may be due to the bulky size of these plates which makes their application difficult on the external oblique ridge.[35] Comparable complication rates (5%) were observed in the present study. One patient reported 1 week postoperatively with soft-tissue dehiscence without plate exposure. It responded well to wound dressing and resuturing.
Table 4: Comparison of complication rates of various authors with the present study

Click here to view


Chronic pain has been reported in both metallic (2%–8%) and bioresorbable fixation system (0%–14%).[19],[20],[39],[40] In the present study, 4 patients (20%) reported mild pain with a VAS score of 1–3 at 2 months which reduced to nil at 4-month follow-up. This complication is more or less related to the surgical technique rather than the plate stability and MMF.

The need of implant removal is a major drawback with metal plates and screws. Various reports suggest the requirement in 12–33 of the cases.[38],[40] In Group 3 of the present study, 31 metal plates were removed after healing. Patients request for implant removal predominates over the other causes. Inflammatory reactions around a metallic implant are also well-documented. Similarly, degradation of bioresorbable plats and screws elicits mild-to-moderate inflammatory reaction.[6],[13],[14],[15],[41] In the present study, no inflammatory repose was noted till 4 months. This is attributed to the fact that the biodegradation process depends on the mechanical structure of the implant and host response.[6],[15],[41]

Novel modification in the technique

Instead of using the recommended 2.25 mm drill with 2.5 mmm tap (thread width of 0.25 mm), a 2.0 mm drill with a 2.5 mm tap (thread width of 0.5 mm) was used in our study. This avoided frequent screw loosening. Where screw loosing was observed, emergency screws were used.[19]

Study limitation

In our study, we found that the treatment outcomes among all the three treatment groups were statistically similar. This suggests that the biodegradable plates and screws can be effectively used with or without MMF to achieve the functional outcome in linear un-displaced mandibular fractures. However, this finding needs to be interpreted with a lot of caution. This may be due to the small size of the current study that we could not assess the real difference between the three groups. For this, a well-planned randomized controlled trial with a sample size of at least 39 patients in each group will be needed.


   Conclusion Top


The present prospective study and comparison with published data suggest that endpoint osteosynthesis can be achieved with the bioresorbable fixation system when used in the treatment of un-displaced linear mandibular fractures without postoperative MMF. A minor modification of using a lower size osteotomy drill can prevent screw loosening. The system itself is technique sensitive and thus has a relatively steep learning curve. In mandibular angle fractures, relatively wide exposure and lateral border fixation using a transbuccal trocar are required due to the bulkiness of plates.

Financial support and sponsorship

Nil.

Conflicts of interest

There are no conflicts of interest.



 
   References Top

1.
Buijs GJ, van Bakelen NB, Jansma J, de Visscher JG, Hoppenreijs TJ, Bergsma JE, et al. A randomized clinical trial of biodegradable and titanium fixation systems in maxillofacial surgery. J Dent Res 2012;91:299-304.  Back to cited text no. 1
    
2.
van Bakelen NB, Buijs GJ, Jansma J, de Visscher JG, Hoppenreijs TJ, Bergsma JE, et al. Decision-making considerations in application of biodegradable fixation systems in maxillofacial surgery – A retrospective cohort study. J Craniomaxillofac Surg 2014;42:417-22.  Back to cited text no. 2
    
3.
Haers PE, Suuronen R, Lindqvist C, Sailer H. Biodegradable polylactide plates and screws in orthognathic surgery: Technical note. J Craniomaxillofac Surg 1998;26:87-91.  Back to cited text no. 3
    
4.
Ray MS, Matthew IR, Frame JW. Metallic fragments on the surface of miniplates and screws before insertion. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg 1999;37:14-8.  Back to cited text no. 4
    
5.
Erkmen E, Simşek B, Yücel E, Kurt A. Three-dimensional finite element analysis used to compare methods of fixation after sagittal split ramus osteotomy: Setback surgery-posterior loading. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2005;43:97-104.  Back to cited text no. 5
    
6.
Sukegawa S, Kanno T, Katase N, Shibata A, Takahashi Y, Furuki Y. Clinical evaluation of an unsintered hydroxyapatite/poly- L-lactide osteoconductive composite device for the internal fixation of maxillofacial fractures. J Craniofac Surg 2016;27:1391-7.  Back to cited text no. 6
    
7.
Yang L, Xu M, Jin X, Xu J, Lu J, Zhang C, et al. Complications of absorbable fixation in maxillofacial surgery: A meta-analysis. PLoS One 2013;8:e67449.  Back to cited text no. 7
    
8.
Siniscalchi EN, Catalfamo L, Allegra A, Musolino C, De Ponte FS. Titanium miniplates: A new risk factor for the development of the bisphosphonate-related osteonecrosis of the jaw. J Craniofac Surg 2013;24:E1-2.  Back to cited text no. 8
    
9.
Suuronen R, Haers PE, Lindqvist C, Sailer HF. Update on bioresorbable plates in maxillofacial surgery. Facial Plast Surg 1999;15:61-72.  Back to cited text no. 9
    
10.
Suuronen R, Kallela I, Lindqvist C. Bioabsorbable plates and screws: Current state of the art in facial fracture repair. J Craniomaxillofac Trauma 2000;6:19-27.  Back to cited text no. 10
    
11.
Leenslag JW, Pennings AJ, Bos RR, Rozema FR, Boering G. Resorbable materials of poly (L-lactide). VI. Plates and screws for internal fracture fixation. Biomaterials 1987;8:70-3.  Back to cited text no. 11
    
12.
Vert M, Li S, Garreau H. New insights on the degradation of bioresorbable polymeric devices based on lactic and glycolic acids. Clin Mater 1992;10:3-8.  Back to cited text no. 12
    
13.
Kanno T, Sukegawa S, Furuki Y, Nariai Y, Sekine J. Overview of innovative advances in bioresorbable plate systems for oral and maxillofacial surgery. Jpn Dent Sci Rev 2018;54:127-38.  Back to cited text no. 13
    
14.
Bali RK, Sharma P, Jindal S, Gaba S. To evaluate the efficacy of biodegradable plating system for fixation of maxillofacial fractures: A prospective study. Natl J Maxillofac Surg 2013;4:167-72.  Back to cited text no. 14
[PUBMED]  [Full text]  
15.
Yolcu Ü, Alan H, Malkoç S, Bozkurt ŞB, Hakki SS. Cytotoxicity Evaluation of Bioresorbable Fixation Screws on Human Gingival Fibroblasts and Mouse Osteoblasts by Real-Time Cell Analysis. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2015;73:1562.e1-10.  Back to cited text no. 15
    
16.
Park YW. Bioabsorbable osteofixation for orthognathic surgery. Maxillofac Plast Reconstr Surg 2015;37:6.  Back to cited text no. 16
    
17.
Sukegawa S, Kanno T, Nagano D, Shibata A, Sukegawa-Takahashi Y, Furuki Y. The clinical feasibility of newly developed thin flat-type bioresorbable osteosynthesis devices for the internal fixation of zygomatic fractures: Is there a difference in healing between bioresorbable materials compare with titanium osteosynthesis? J Craniofac Surg 2016;27:2124-9.  Back to cited text no. 17
    
18.
Pina S, Ferreira JM. Bioresorbable plates and screws for clinical applications: A review. J Healthc Eng 2012;3:243-60.  Back to cited text no. 18
    
19.
Bhatt K, Roychoudhury A, Bhutia O, Trikha A, Seith A, Pandey RM. Equivalence randomized controlled trial of bioresorbable versus titanium miniplates in treatment of mandibular fracture: A pilot study. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2010;68:1842-8.  Back to cited text no. 19
    
20.
Laughlin RM, Block MS, Wilk R, Malloy RB, Kent JN. Resorbable plates for the fixation of mandibular fractures: A prospective study. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2007;65:89-96.  Back to cited text no. 20
    
21.
Ferretti C. A prospective trial of poly-L-lactic/polyglycolic acid co-polymer plates and screws for internal fixation of mandibular fractures. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2008;37:242-8.  Back to cited text no. 21
    
22.
Bayat M, Garajei A, Ghorbani K, Motamedi MH. Treatment of mandibular angle fractures using a single bioresorbable miniplate. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2010;68:1573-7.  Back to cited text no. 22
    
23.
Muller ME, Allogower M, Willenger H. Manual of internal fixation. New York: Springer – Verlag; 1970.  Back to cited text no. 23
    
24.
Scher N, Poe D, Kuchnir F, Reft C, Weichselbaum R, Panje WR. Radiotherapy of the resected mandible following stainless steel plate fixation. Laryngoscope 1988;98:561-3.  Back to cited text no. 24
    
25.
Luo M, Yang X, Wang Q, Li C, Yin Y, Han X. Skeletal stability following bioresorbable versus titanium fixation in orthognathic surgery: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2018;47:141-51.  Back to cited text no. 25
    
26.
Suuronen R, Laine P, Pohjonen T, Lindqvist C. Sagittal ramus osteotomies fixed with biodegradable screws: A preliminary report. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 1994;52:715-20.  Back to cited text no. 26
    
27.
Harada K, Enomoto S. Stability after surgical correction of mandibular prognathism using the sagittal split ramus osteotomy and fixation with poly-L-lactic acid (PLLA) screws. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 1997;55:464-8.  Back to cited text no. 27
    
28.
Iizuka T, Mikkonen P, Pauku P, Lindqvist C. Reconstruction of orbital floor with polydioxanone plate. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 1991;20:83-7.  Back to cited text no. 28
    
29.
Wood GD. Inion biodegradable plates: The first century. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2006;44:38-41.  Back to cited text no. 29
    
30.
Kumar V, Gour S, Chaube RK, Chaube RK, Chaube SK, Tiwari M, et al. Comparative Efficacy and Adaptability of Bioresorbable Plates with Titanium Mini plates in the Management of Mandibular Fractures. Clin Res Open Access 4(2): dx.doi.org/10.16966/2469-6714.137.  Back to cited text no. 30
    
31.
Ellis E 3rd, Walker L. Treatment of mandibular angle fractures using two noncompression miniplates. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 1994;52:1032-6.  Back to cited text no. 31
    
32.
Champy M, Loddé JP, Schmitt R, Jaeger JH, Muster D. Mandibular osteosynthesis by miniature screwed plates via a buccal approach. J Maxillofac Surg 1978;6:14-21.  Back to cited text no. 32
    
33.
Lamphier J, Ziccardi V, Ruvo A, Janel M. Complications of mandibular fractures in an urban teaching center. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2003;61:745-9.  Back to cited text no. 33
    
34.
Leonhardt H, Demmrich A, Mueller A, Mai R, Loukota R, Eckelt U. INION compared with titanium osteosynthesis: A prospective investigation of the treatment of mandibular fractures. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2008;46:631-4.  Back to cited text no. 34
    
35.
Lee HB, Oh JS, Kim SG, Kim HK, Moon SY, Kim YK, et al. Comparison of titanium and biodegradable miniplates for fixation of mandibular fractures. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2010;68:2065-9.  Back to cited text no. 35
    
36.
Ylikontiola L, Sundqvuist K, Sàndor GK, Törmälä P, Ashammakhi N. Self-reinforced bioresorbable poly-L/DL-lactide [SR-P (L/DL) LA] 70/30 miniplates and miniscrews are reliable for fixation of anterior mandibular fractures: A pilot study. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 2004;97:312-7.  Back to cited text no. 36
    
37.
Yerit KC, Hainich S, Enislidis G, Turhani D, Klug C, Wittwer G, et al. Biodegradable fixation of mandibular fractures in children: Stability and early results. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 2005;100:17-24.  Back to cited text no. 37
    
38.
Nagase DY, Courtemanche DJ, Peters DA. Plate removal in traumatic facial fractures: 13-year practice review. Ann Plast Surg 2005;55:608-11.  Back to cited text no. 38
    
39.
Kamata M, Sakamoto Y, Kishi K. Foreign-Body Reaction to Bioabsorbable Plate and Screw in Craniofacial Surgery. J Craniofac Surg 2019;30:e34-e36.  Back to cited text no. 39
    
40.
Renton TF, Wiesenfeld D. Mandibular fracture osteosynthesis: A comparison of three techniques. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg 1996;34:166-73.  Back to cited text no. 40
    
41.
Sukegawa S, Kanno T, Kawai H, Shibata A, Takahashi Y, Nagatsuka H, et al. Long-term bioresorption of bone fixation devices made from composites of unsintered hydroxyapatite particles and poly-l-lactide. J Hard Tissue Biol 2015;24:219-24.  Back to cited text no. 41
    


    Figures

  [Figure 1], [Figure 2], [Figure 3], [Figure 4], [Figure 5], [Figure 6], [Figure 7], [Figure 8], [Figure 9]
 
 
    Tables

  [Table 1], [Table 2], [Table 3], [Table 4]



 

Top
   
 
  Search
 
    Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
    Access Statistics
    Email Alert *
    Add to My List *
* Registration required (free)  

 
  In this article
    Abstract
   Introduction
   Methodology
   Results
   Discussion
   Conclusion
    References
    Article Figures
    Article Tables

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed220    
    Printed11    
    Emailed0    
    PDF Downloaded62    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal