Comparison of standard miniplates and locked miniplates in post-traumatic fracture stabilization

yazar, lutfiye; Çömlekçioğlu, Yağmur; Ayhan, Mustafa; Aydil, Barış Altuğ

doi:10.14744/tjtes.2021.59447

Comparison of standard miniplates and locked miniplates in post-traumatic fracture stabilization

lutfiye yazar, (İstanbul Üniversitesi Diş Hekimliği Fakültesi Ağız ve Çene Cerrahisi Anabilim Dalı, İstanbul, Türkiye)

Barış Altuğ Aydil, (İstanbul Üniversitesi Diş Hekimliği Fakültesi Ağız ve Çene Cerrahisi Anabilim Dalı, İstanbul, Türkiye)

Mustafa Ayhan, (İstanbul Üniversitesi Diş Hekimliği Fakültesi Ağız ve Çene Cerrahisi Anabilim Dalı, İstanbul, Türkiye)

Yağmur Çömlekçioğlu (İstanbul Üniversitesi Diş Hekimliği Fakültesi Ağız ve Çene Cerrahisi Anabilim Dalı, İstanbul, Türkiye)

Ulusal Travma ve Acil Cerrahi Dergisi

2 0

Yıl: 2022 Cilt: 28 Sayı: 6 Sayfa Aralığı: 715 - 722 Metin Dili: İngilizce DOI: 10.14744/tjtes.2021.59447 İndeks Tarihi: 07-11-2022

Comparison of standard miniplates and locked miniplates in post-traumatic fracture stabilization

Öz:

BACKGROUND: Bicortical screws (lag and positional) or miniplates with monocortical screws are generally used for the rigid fixa- tion of the sagittal split ramus osteotomy (SSRO) in maxillofacial surgery. However, in this osteosynthesis method, the plate must be perfectly adapted to the bone to prevent misalignment of the bone segment and occlusal changes. In addition, it is necessary to prevent the position of the condyle in the mandibular fossa from changing after fixation. In recent years, locked miniplate systems have been used to overcome these complications. METHODS: The aim of this study is to compare the commonly used 2.0 mm standard miniplate/screw systems and 2.0 mm locking miniplate/screw systems in fresh sheep jaws with Obwegeser-Dal Pont (OD) and Hunsuck-Epker (HE) modifications, by evaluating standard parameters. RESULTS: Our study consists of two main groups and two subgroups. 40 sheep hemimandibulae were randomly divided into two main groups. Each group was randomly divided into two subgroups. There are ten hemimandibulae (n=10) in each subgroup. Linear force test was applied using 4-hole standard miniplate and 4-hole locking miniplate systems on sheep jaws with 5 mm advancement by applying OD and HE techniques, which are two frequently preferred modifications in SSRO. For statistical analysis SPSS® 16.0 (Sta- tistical Package for the Social Sciences, SPSS Inc. Chicago, Illinois, USA) package program was used. It was statistically compared with the 95% confidence interval using the Pearson coefficient, and p<0.05 was interpreted as significant. The values of the loading forces applied to the samples in the groups were subjected to analysis of variance (ANOVA) to confirm the normality of the sample. Multiple comparisons were made between groups using the Tukey test. The mean loadings in the groups were analyzed by one-way ANOVA. CONCLUSION: In general, as the strength of the force increases, the displacement values increase in all groups, but although it was observed that the locked miniplate/screw system was more stable than the standard miniplate/screw system, no statistically significant difference was found.

Anahtar Kelime:

Belge Türü: Makale Makale Türü: Diğer Erişim Türü: Erişime Açık

1. Dal Pont G. Retro-molar osteotomy for correction of prognathism. Min- erva Chir 1959;14:1138–41.
2. Epker B. Modifications in the sagittal osteotomy of the mandible. J Oral Surg 1977;35:157–9.
3. Hunsuck EE. A modified intraoral sagittal splitting technic for correction of mandibular prognathism. J Oral Surg 1968;26:250–3.
4. Bockmann R, Meyns J, Dik E, Kessler P. The modifications of the sagit- tal ramus split osteotomy: A literature review. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open 2014;2:e271.
5. Miloro M, Ghali G, Larsen P, Waite P. Peterson’s Principles of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery. United States: PMPH-USA; 2004.
6. Brasileiro BF, Grempel RG, Ambrosano GM, Passeri LA. An in vitro evaluation of rigid internal fixation techniques for sagittal split ramus os- teotomies: Advancement surgery. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2009;67:809– 17.
7. Sato FR, Asprino L, Consani S, Noritomi PY, de Moraes M. A compara- tive evaluation of the hybrid technique for fixation of the sagittal split ra- mus osteotomy in mandibular advancement by mechanical, photoelastic, and finite element analysis. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol 2012;114:S60–8.
8. Erkmen E, Simsek B, Yucel E, Kurt A. Comparison of different fixation methods following sagittal split ramus osteotomies using three-dimen- sional finite elements analysis. Part 1: Advancement surgery-posterior loading. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2005;34:551–8.
9. Ribeiro-Junior PD, Magro-Filho O, Shastri KA, Papageorge MB. In vitro biomechanical evaluation of the use of conventional and locking mini- plate/screw systems for sagittal split ramus osteotomy. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2010;68:724–30.
10. Ellis E, Graham J. Use of a 2.0-mm locking plate/screw system for mandibular fracture surgery. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2002;60:642–5.
11. Gutwald R, Alpert B, Schmelzeisen R. Principle and stability of locking plates. Keio J Med 2003;52:21–4.
12. Sauerbier S, Kuenz J, Hauptmann S, Hoogendijk CF, Liebehenschel N, Schon R, et al. Clinical aspects of a 2.0-mm locking plate system for mandibular fracture surgery. J Craniomaxillofac Surg 2010;38:501–4.
13. Alpert B, Gutwald R, Schmelzeisen R. New innovations in craniomax- illofacial fixation: The 2.0 lock system. Keio J Med 2003;52:120–7.
14. Vieira Santos ZT, Goulart DR, Sigua-Rodriguez EA, Pozzer L, Olate S, Albergaria-Barbosa JR. Mechanical evaluation of the use of conven- tional and locking miniplate/screw systems used in sagittal split ramus osteotomy. J Korean Assoc Oral Maxillofac Surg 2017;43:77–82.
15. Oguz Y, Watanabe ER, Reis JM, Spin-Neto R, Gabrielli MA, Pereira- Filho VA. In vitro biomechanical comparison of six different fixation methods following 5-mm sagittal split advancement osteotomies. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2015;44:984–8.
16. Sirin YS, Limani E, Soley S. İki farkli sagittal split osteotomi tekniğinin titanyum plaklarin ın-vitro biyomekanik dayanimi üzerindeki etkileri. İs- tanbul Üniv Diş Hekim Fakült Dergisi 2011;45:67–73.
17. Uckan S, Schwimmer A, Kummer F, Greenberg AM. Effect of the an- gle of the screw on the stability of the mandibular sagittal split ramus osteotomy: A Study in sheep mandibles. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2001;39:266–8.
18. Ozden B, Alkan A, Arici S, Erdem E. In vitro comparison of biomechan- ical characteristics of sagittal split osteotomy fixation techniques. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2006;35:837–41.
19. Oguz Y, Saglam H, Dolanmaz D, Uckan S. Comparison of stability of 2.0 mm standard and 2.0 mm locking miniplate/screws for the fixation of sagittal split ramus osteotomy on sheep mandibles. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2011;49:135–7.
20. Cilasun U, Uckan S, Dolanmaz D, Saglam H. Immediate mechanical sta- bility of sagittal split ramus osteotomy fixed with resorbable compared with titanium bicortical screws in mandibles of sheep. Br J Oral Maxillo- fac Surg 2006;44:534–7.
21. Pereira Filho VA, Iamashita HY, Monnazzi MS, Gabrielli MF, Vaz LG, Passeri LA. In vitro biomechanical evaluation of sagittal split osteotomy fixation with a specifically designed miniplate. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2013;42:316–20.
22. Dolanmaz D, Uckan S, Isik K, Saglam H. Comparison of stability of absorbable and titanium plate and screw fixation for sagittal split ramus osteotomy. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2004;42:127–32.
23. Herford AS, Ellis E. Use of a locking reconstruction bone plate/screw system for mandibular surgery. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 1998;56:1261–5.
24. Chritah A, Lazow SK, Berger JR. Transoral 2.0-mm locking miniplate fixation of mandibular fractures plus 1 week of maxillomandibular fixa- tion: A prospective study. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2005;63:1737–41.
25. Wusiman P, Tuerxun J, Yaolidaxi B, Moming A. Locking plate system versus standard plate fixation in the management of mandibular frac- tures: Meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. J Craniofac Surg 2017;28:1456–61.
26. Oguz Y, Uckan S, Ozden AU, Uckan E, Eser A. Stability of locking and conventional 2.0-mm miniplate/screw systems after sagittal split ramus osteotomy: Finite element analysis. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endodontol 2009;108:174–7.
27. Klein GB, Mendes GC, Ribeiro Junior PD, Viswanath A, Papageorge M. Biomechanical evaluation of different osteosynthesis methods after mandibular sagittal split osteotomy in ma
28. Ribeiro-Junior PD, Magro-Filho O, Shastri KA, Papageorge MB. Which kind of miniplate to use in mandibular sagittal split osteotomy? An in vitro study. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2012;41:1369–73.
29. Ueki K, Hashiba Y, Marukawa K, Alam S, Nakagawa K, Yamamoto E. Skeletal stability after mandibular setback surgery: Bicortical fixation us- ing a 2.0-mm locking plate system versus monocortical fixation using a nonlocking plate system. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2008;66:900–4.
30. Kabasawa Y, Sato M, Kikuchi T, Sato Y, Takahashi Y, Higuchi Y, et al. Analysis and comparison of clinical results of bilateral sagittal split ramus osteotomy performed with the use of monocortical locking plate fixation or bicortical screw fixation. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol 2013;116:e333–41.
31. Pozzer L, Olate S, Cavalieri-Pereira L, de Moraes M, Albergaria-Barbosa JR. Influence of the design in sagittal split ramus osteotomy on the me- chanical behavior. Int J Clin Exp Med 2014;7:1284–8.
32. Takahashi H, Moriyama S, Furuta H, Matsunaga H, Sakamoto Y, Kikuta T. Three lateral osteotomy designs for bilateral sagittal split osteotomy: Biomechanical evaluation with three-dimensional finite element analysis. Head Face Med 2010;6:4.
33. Puricelli E, Fonseca JS, de Paris MF, Sant’Anna H. Applied mechanics of the Puricelli osteotomy: A linear elastic analysis with the finite element method. Head Face Med 2007;3:38.
34. Sarkar DF, Mishra N, Samal D, Pati D, Kar IB, Mohapatra D, et al. Locking versus non-locking plating system in the treatment of mandibu- lar fractures: A randomized comparative study. J Cranio Maxillofac Surg 2021;49:184–90.
35. Kohn DH, Richmond EM, Dootz ER, Feinberg SE, Pietrzak WS. In vitro comparison of parameters affecting the fixation strength of sagittal split osteotomies. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 1995;53:1374–83.

APA	yazar l, Aydil B, Ayhan M, Çömlekçioğlu Y (2022). Comparison of standard miniplates and locked miniplates in post-traumatic fracture stabilization. , 715 - 722. 10.14744/tjtes.2021.59447
Chicago	yazar lutfiye,Aydil Barış Altuğ,Ayhan Mustafa,Çömlekçioğlu Yağmur Comparison of standard miniplates and locked miniplates in post-traumatic fracture stabilization. (2022): 715 - 722. 10.14744/tjtes.2021.59447
MLA	yazar lutfiye,Aydil Barış Altuğ,Ayhan Mustafa,Çömlekçioğlu Yağmur Comparison of standard miniplates and locked miniplates in post-traumatic fracture stabilization. , 2022, ss.715 - 722. 10.14744/tjtes.2021.59447
AMA	yazar l,Aydil B,Ayhan M,Çömlekçioğlu Y Comparison of standard miniplates and locked miniplates in post-traumatic fracture stabilization. . 2022; 715 - 722. 10.14744/tjtes.2021.59447
Vancouver	yazar l,Aydil B,Ayhan M,Çömlekçioğlu Y Comparison of standard miniplates and locked miniplates in post-traumatic fracture stabilization. . 2022; 715 - 722. 10.14744/tjtes.2021.59447
IEEE	yazar l,Aydil B,Ayhan M,Çömlekçioğlu Y "Comparison of standard miniplates and locked miniplates in post-traumatic fracture stabilization." , ss.715 - 722, 2022. 10.14744/tjtes.2021.59447
ISNAD	yazar, lutfiye vd. "Comparison of standard miniplates and locked miniplates in post-traumatic fracture stabilization". (2022), 715-722. https://doi.org/10.14744/tjtes.2021.59447

APA	yazar l, Aydil B, Ayhan M, Çömlekçioğlu Y (2022). Comparison of standard miniplates and locked miniplates in post-traumatic fracture stabilization. Ulusal Travma ve Acil Cerrahi Dergisi, 28(6), 715 - 722. 10.14744/tjtes.2021.59447
Chicago	yazar lutfiye,Aydil Barış Altuğ,Ayhan Mustafa,Çömlekçioğlu Yağmur Comparison of standard miniplates and locked miniplates in post-traumatic fracture stabilization. Ulusal Travma ve Acil Cerrahi Dergisi 28, no.6 (2022): 715 - 722. 10.14744/tjtes.2021.59447
MLA	yazar lutfiye,Aydil Barış Altuğ,Ayhan Mustafa,Çömlekçioğlu Yağmur Comparison of standard miniplates and locked miniplates in post-traumatic fracture stabilization. Ulusal Travma ve Acil Cerrahi Dergisi, vol.28, no.6, 2022, ss.715 - 722. 10.14744/tjtes.2021.59447
AMA	yazar l,Aydil B,Ayhan M,Çömlekçioğlu Y Comparison of standard miniplates and locked miniplates in post-traumatic fracture stabilization. Ulusal Travma ve Acil Cerrahi Dergisi. 2022; 28(6): 715 - 722. 10.14744/tjtes.2021.59447
Vancouver	yazar l,Aydil B,Ayhan M,Çömlekçioğlu Y Comparison of standard miniplates and locked miniplates in post-traumatic fracture stabilization. Ulusal Travma ve Acil Cerrahi Dergisi. 2022; 28(6): 715 - 722. 10.14744/tjtes.2021.59447
IEEE	yazar l,Aydil B,Ayhan M,Çömlekçioğlu Y "Comparison of standard miniplates and locked miniplates in post-traumatic fracture stabilization." Ulusal Travma ve Acil Cerrahi Dergisi, 28, ss.715 - 722, 2022. 10.14744/tjtes.2021.59447
ISNAD	yazar, lutfiye vd. "Comparison of standard miniplates and locked miniplates in post-traumatic fracture stabilization". Ulusal Travma ve Acil Cerrahi Dergisi 28/6 (2022), 715-722. https://doi.org/10.14744/tjtes.2021.59447