Display options
Cite
Kumar BP, Kumar KA, Venkatesh V, et al. Study of Efficacy and the Comparison Between 2.0 mm Locking Plating System and 2.0 mm Standard Plating System in Mandibular Fractures. J Maxillofac Oral Surg. 2014;14(3):799-807doi: 10.1007/s12663-014-0718-5.
Kumar, B. P., Kumar, K. A., Venkatesh, V., Mohan, A. P., Ramesh, K., & Mallikarjun, K. (2015). Study of Efficacy and the Comparison Between 2.0 mm Locking Plating System and 2.0 mm Standard Plating System in Mandibular Fractures. Journal of maxillofacial and oral surgery, 14(3), 799-807. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12663-014-0718-5
Kumar, B Pavan, et al. "Study of Efficacy and the Comparison Between 2.0 mm Locking Plating System and 2.0 mm Standard Plating System in Mandibular Fractures." Journal of maxillofacial and oral surgery vol. 14,3 (2015): 799-807. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12663-014-0718-5
Kumar BP, Kumar KA, Venkatesh V, Mohan AP, Ramesh K, Mallikarjun K. Study of Efficacy and the Comparison Between 2.0 mm Locking Plating System and 2.0 mm Standard Plating System in Mandibular Fractures. J Maxillofac Oral Surg. 2015 Sep;14(3):799-807. doi: 10.1007/s12663-014-0718-5. Epub 2014 Nov 05. PMID: 26225079; PMCID: PMC4511910.
Copy Download .nbib Format: NLM
Share it on

J Maxillofac Oral Surg. 2015 Sep;14(3):799-807. doi: 10.1007/s12663-014-0718-5. Epub 2014 Nov 05.

Study of Efficacy and the Comparison Between 2.0 mm Locking Plating System and 2.0 mm Standard Plating System in Mandibular Fractures.

Journal of maxillofacial and oral surgery

B Pavan Kumar, K A Jeevan Kumar, V Venkatesh, A P Mohan, K Ramesh, K Mallikarjun

Affiliations

  1. Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Kamineni Institute of Dental Sciences, Sreepuram, Narketpally, Nalgonda (Dist.), 508254 Andhra Pradesh India.

PMID: 26225079 PMCID: PMC4511910 DOI: 10.1007/s12663-014-0718-5

Abstract

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and comparison between 2.0 mm locking plate system and 2.0 mm Champy's titanium mini plating system in mandible fractures.

MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 20 patients with mandibular fractures were selected and divided into two groups A and B on randomized basis. Group A was treated with open reduction internal fixation using 2.0 mm locking plates and group B with 2.0 mm Champy's titanium miniplates. All patients were followed up for 12 weeks postoperatively.

RESULTS: Results of the study show less screw loosening, less precision in plate adaptation and less alteration of the osseous or occlusal relationship upon screw tightening in group A. Chi square test was applied to compare the results between the two groups. Statistical analysis did not show significant difference of incidence of malocclusion between the two groups (p value = 0.606). Statistical analysis using un-paired t test showed significant difference of working time between the two groups (p value = 0.00296). When comparing the overall complication rates according to plates used, the χ(2) test showed no statistically significant difference between the locking and nonlocking plates (p > 0.05).

CONCLUSION: It is observed in our study that the locking plate/screw system offers significant advantages over the conventional plating system. The precise adaptation required for using conventional plates is not needed when this locking plate/screw system is used. Locking plate/screw system provides better stability than the conventional plate/screw system.

Keywords: Champy’s mini plates; Locking plate and screw system; Mandibular fractures; Open reduction internal fixation (ORIF)

References

  1. J Orthop Trauma. 2004 Sep;18(8):488-93 - PubMed
  2. Rev Stomatol Chir Maxillofac. 1977;78(8):545-51 - PubMed
  3. Ann Chir Plast. 1977;22(2):165-7 - PubMed
  4. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 1992 Apr;21(2):65-9 - PubMed
  5. Ann Maxillofac Surg. 2014 Jan;4(1):51-4 - PubMed
  6. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2011 Apr;40(4):372-7 - PubMed
  7. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod. 2009 Aug;108(2):174-7 - PubMed
  8. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 1991 Apr;29(2):73-6 - PubMed
  9. Rev Stomatol Chir Maxillofac. 1976 Apr-May;77(3):569-76 - PubMed
  10. Keio J Med. 2003 Mar;52(1):21-4 - PubMed
  11. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2002 Nov;60(11):1319-26 - PubMed
  12. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2011 Jul;69(7):1995-2000 - PubMed
  13. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2002 Feb;60(2):167-70 - PubMed
  14. J Craniomaxillofac Surg. 2008 Jul;36(5):251-9 - PubMed
  15. J Craniomaxillofac Surg. 2008 Apr;36(3):152-6 - PubMed
  16. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 1994 Sep;52(9):931-5; discussion 935-6 - PubMed
  17. Am J Orthop (Belle Mead NJ). 2004 Sep;33(9):439-46 - PubMed
  18. J Maxillofac Surg. 1978 Feb;6(1):14-21 - PubMed
  19. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 1994 Jun;120(6):605-12 - PubMed
  20. J Craniomaxillofac Surg. 2008 Apr;36(3):157-60 - PubMed
  21. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 1982 Jul;40(7):457-61 - PubMed
  22. Rev Stomatol Chir Maxillofac. 1976 Apr-May;77(3):577-82 - PubMed
  23. Ann Chir Plast. 1977;22(4):261-4 - PubMed
  24. Zahn Mund Kieferheilkd Zentralbl. 1975;63(4):339-41 - PubMed
  25. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2001 Apr;39(2):145-8 - PubMed
  26. Craniomaxillofac Trauma Reconstr. 2009 Mar;2(1):49-60 - PubMed
  27. Schweiz Monatsschr Zahnmed. 1987;97(8):985-9 - PubMed
  28. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 1996 Jul;54(7):864-71; discussion 871-2 - PubMed
  29. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2003 Jul;61(7):745-9; discussion 749-50 - PubMed
  30. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2004 Nov;62(11):1392-5 - PubMed
  31. J Craniomaxillofac Surg. 1988 Jan;16(1):22-7 - PubMed
  32. HNO. 2011 Nov;59(11):1079-87 - PubMed
  33. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2002 Jun;60(6):642-5; discussion 645-6 - PubMed
  34. Dtsch Z Mund Kiefer Gesichtschir. 1991 Jul-Aug;15(4):265-70 - PubMed
  35. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2006 Oct;64(10):1475-9 - PubMed

Publication Types