05.11.2014 Views

Vol 21 No. 1

Vol 21 No. 1

Vol 21 No. 1

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

J Bagh College Dentistry <strong>Vol</strong>. <strong>21</strong>(1), 2009 Closed reduction for...<br />

MATERIALS & METHODS<br />

Patients' age & gender<br />

The study discuss and prospectively review<br />

the results of 32 dentulous patients derived from<br />

population of patients with missile injuries<br />

admitted at the oral & maxillofacial surgery<br />

department at Al-Yarmouk Teaching Hospital in<br />

the period between october 2006 – october<br />

2007.The extremes of patient age ranged from<br />

<strong>21</strong>-58 years.<br />

Diagnosis<br />

Diagnosis of mandibular fractures based on<br />

clinical and radiographic examination. Clinical<br />

examination of the face included extra and<br />

intraoral examination. The local examination was<br />

done to diagnose or exclude the presence of<br />

mandibular fractures. Extraoral examination<br />

achieved by inspection for the presence of<br />

swelling, ecchymosis, bleeding, soft tissue<br />

laceration, changes in facial contour, limitation<br />

or any abnormal mandibular movements.<br />

Bimanual palpation of the mandible with both<br />

hands to detect any step deformity, tenderness or<br />

crepitation on pressure. Compression test was<br />

used by the application of gentle compression of<br />

the mandible using both hands in two opposite<br />

directions under the lower border to elicit pain<br />

which indicate mandibular fracture.<br />

Intraoral examination was started by<br />

inspection for the presence of sublingual<br />

hematoma, mucosal lacerations and changes in<br />

occlusion. Teeth were examined for quantity,<br />

quality and occlusal relationship, gentle<br />

manipulation for mobility of fractured segments<br />

and displacement.<br />

Radiographic examination include the<br />

essential radiographs and according to their<br />

availability (plain radiographs as<br />

posteroanterior view of the mandible, oblique<br />

lateral view, intraoral occlusal view), Panoramic<br />

view OPG as shown in (Figure 3 and 4),<br />

computed tomography CT scans (axial and<br />

coronal).<br />

Maxillomandibular fixation MMF<br />

Closed reduction and indirect skeletal<br />

fixation the sole method of treatment, with jaws<br />

fixed using arch bars (Erich pattern) as a mean<br />

of intramaxillary fixation for the maxilla and<br />

mandible (Figure 2), MMF was carried out with<br />

soft stainless steel wires (0. 35 mm gauge or 0.4<br />

mm) for all patients. Circumferential wiring<br />

used in two cases only for support and elevation<br />

of badly displaced mandibular fractures.<br />

Immobilization for 6 weeks being the general<br />

guideline. Reduction and fixation of<br />

comminuted mandibular fractures achieved in<br />

25 cases under local anesthesia and in 7 cases<br />

under general anesthesia. All patients were<br />

placed on antibiotic treatment (prophylactic or<br />

therapeutic for already present infection) with<br />

possible use of culture and sensitivity test if<br />

possible from the time of admission until five<br />

days postoperatively. Osseous union of the<br />

fracture was tested clinically after 6 weeks of<br />

MMF, tie wires replaced if union is not<br />

satisfactory. To follow patients and monitoring<br />

for late complications, patients seen every 2<br />

weeks after immobilization for the first 2<br />

months then every month for at least 6 months.<br />

RESULTS<br />

In this study 26 of the injured patients were<br />

males 81.8% (table 1). Patients with age group<br />

20-29 years are mainly sujected to missile<br />

injuries as shown in table 2. Mandibular body<br />

was the commonest site for comminuted<br />

fractures 50% (table 3). Transient and permanent<br />

complications showed high rate 53.1% and less<br />

than half of patients 40.6% required further<br />

reconstructive surgery as shown in tables 5 and<br />

6. There was statistically significance at<br />

probability level < 0.05.<br />

Table 1: Gender distribution.<br />

Gender Number %<br />

Male 26 81.8<br />

Female 6 18.8<br />

Table 2: Age distribution.<br />

Age group Number %<br />

10-19 year 2 6.2<br />

20-29 18 56.2<br />

30-39 8 25<br />

40-49 4 12.5<br />

Table 3: Number of patients and fracture<br />

site.<br />

Number of<br />

Site of fracture %<br />

patients<br />

body region<br />

angle<br />

symphysisparasymphysis<br />

Ramus<br />

16<br />

7<br />

6<br />

3<br />

50<br />

<strong>21</strong>.8<br />

18.7<br />

9.3<br />

Table 4: imaging studies.<br />

Imaging study number %<br />

Posteroanterior<br />

True lateral<br />

OPG<br />

Oblique lateral<br />

Occipitomental<br />

Occlusal<br />

CT scan<br />

32<br />

32<br />

20<br />

5<br />

4<br />

2<br />

3<br />

100<br />

100<br />

62.5<br />

15.6<br />

12.5<br />

6.2<br />

9.3<br />

Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery and Periodontology 93

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!