Intermaxillary fixation is not usually necessary to reduce mandibular fractures

doi:10.1054/bjom.1998.0372

British Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery

Volume 37, Issue 1, February 1999, Pages 52-57

https://doi.org/10.1054/bjom.1998.0372 Get rights and content

Abstract

We undertook a retrospective study of all isolated mandibular fractures which had required active management over a 1-year period at the Maxillofacial Unit at Newcastle General Hospital. Patients with single or multiple fractures of the mandible were included in the study, if there were other simultaneous fractures of the facial skeleton, those patients were excluded. All case notes and radiographs were reviewed by a single operator. A total of 202 cases of fractured mandible were identified of which 115 fulfilled the selection criteria of: isolated fracture, no previous facial fracture, treatment by open reduction and internal fixation using titanium osteosynthesis miniplates, and all case notes and radiographs available to study.

Sixty-six patients had their fractures reduced manually to obtain anatomical reduction without the use of peroperative intermaxillary fixation (IMF). Forty-nine were treated conventionally using peroperative IMF. The two groups were broadly similar in severity and type of fracture, and the method of reduction seemed to be decided by the operator according to their preference. IMF was not used routinely postoperatively.

Overall there were significantly fewer occlusal discrepancies in the early postoperative period in those patients treated by anatomical reduction (6/66 compared with 16/49, P = 0.002) but there was no difference in the final outcome of the occlusion between the two methods of reduction.

Avoidance of the use of peroperative IMF is more economical in time and cost, is safer for the operator, and more comfortable for the patient. As this technique produces comparable results in the long term with fewer early complications, we conclude that IMF is not usually necessary to reduce fractures confined to the mandibular bone.

References (9)

F.X. Michelet et al.
Osteosynthesis with miniaturised screwed plates in maxillofacial surgery
J Maxillofac Surg
(1973)
J.L. Cawood
Small plate osteosynthesis of mandibular fractures
Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg
(1985)
T.F. Renton et al.
Mandibular fracture osteosynthesis: a comparison of three techniques
Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg
(1996)
N.L. Rowe et al.
Fractures of the facial skeleton, 2nd edn
(1968)

There are more references available in the full text version of this article.

Cited by (49)

European multicenter prospective analysis of the use of maxillomandibular fixation for mandibular fractures treated with open reduction and internal fixation
2023, Journal of Stomatology, Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery
The goal of mandibular fracture treatment is to restore static and dynamic occlusal functions. Open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) of these fractures can be associated with an intraoperative and/or postoperative maxillo-mandibular fixation (MMF). The aim of this study was to analyse the use of perioperative MMF and its effects on occlusal outcomes in the management of mandibular fractures.
This multicentric prospective study included adult patients with mandibular fractures treated with ORIF. The following data were collected: age, gender, pre-trauma dental status (dentate, partially dentate), cause of injury, fracture site, associated facial fractures, surgical approach, type of ORIF (rigid, non-rigid or mixed), thickness and number of plates, modality of intraoperative MMF (arch bars, self-tapping and self-drilling screws [STSDSs], manual, other) and duration of postoperative MMF. The primary outcome was malocclusion at 6 weeks and 3 months. Statistical analyses were performed with Fisher's exact test or chi-square test, as appropriate.
Between 1 May 2021 and 30 April 2022, 336 patients, 264 males and 72 females (median age, 28 years) with mandibular fractures (194 single, 124 double and 18 triple fractures) were hospitalized. Intraoperative MMF was performed in all patients. Osteosynthesis was rigid in 75% of single fractures, and rigid or mixed in 85% and 100% of double and triple fractures, respectively. Excluding patients who underwent manual reduction, postoperative MMF (median duration, 3 weeks) was performed in 140 (64%) patients, without differences by type or number of fractures (p > 0.05). No significant difference was found in the incidence of malocclusion in patients with postoperative MMF (5%, 95% confidence interval [CI], 2–10%) compared to those without (4%; 95% IC, 1–11%) (p > 0.05).
Postoperative MMF was performed in more than half of the patients despite adequate fracture osteosynthesis, with wide variability amongst centers. No evidence of a reduction in the incidence of postoperative malocclusion in patients treated with postoperative MMF was found.
Focus on the use of maxillomandibular fixation in mandibular fracture oseosynthesis
2022, Journal of Stomatology, Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery
The objective of this study was to evaluate the efficiency of three methods of isolated mandibular fracture intraoperative reduction.
This 6-year retrospective study included patients with isolated extra-articular mandibular fractures who would benefit from osteosynthesis. The endpoint was postoperative occlusion according to the type of intraoperative immobilization: screws, arch, or manual reduction.
A total of 145 patients were included, with 233 fractures. Forty-five patients underwent manual reduction without maxillo-mandibular fixation (MMF), 51 MMF with screws, and 49 MMF with arch, with 11.1%, 5.9% and 4.1% of patients in these groups experiencing postoperative malocclusion, respectively. The overall malocclusion rate was 6.9%. There was no significant difference among the 3 methods according to univariate statistical analysis (p = 0.42) or after comparing MMF (grouping screws and arches) to manual reduction without MMF (p = 0.29).
This study did not show a significant difference between the different methods of intraoperative reduction of isolated extra-articular mandibular fractures, even though intraoperative MMF was much more commonly used for complex fractures. However, there is a non-significant tendency to get a better post-operative occlusal result with MMF, which remains the reference traitement. Intraoperative manual reduction without MMF may be used within trained teams in some instances.
Is manual reduction adequate for intraoperative control of occlusion during fixation of mandibular fractures? A systematic review and meta-analysis
2022, British Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery
Citation Excerpt :
We performed a systematic risk of bias assessment to identify bias in each trial. The risk of bias was high in two,14,16 unclear in one,15 and low in one.17 The risk in individual studies is summarised in Figure 2, and the risk across the included studies in Figure 3.
The aim of this systematic review was to find out if manual intraoperative control of occlusion is adequate for the reduction of mandibular fractures in comparison with intermaxillary fixation (IMF). We searched PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Library and Clinical Trials Registry, and the references of included trials. Our primary outcomes of interest were the reduction of fracture anatomically and radiographically, occlusal disturbances, and the incidence of revision procedures due to poor occlusion or reduction. Our secondary outcomes of interest were operating time and infective complications. Of the 257 studies retrieved (manual reduction = 136, IMF = 121), four were included. The studies had an unclear risk of bias. Nevertheless, the overall effect was statistically significant and in favour of manual reduction, with a lower number of adverse events in the manual reduction group (n = 43) than in the IMF group (n = 78), odds ratio 0.42 (95% CI 0.27 to 0.64). An absolute reduction in adverse events was seen in occlusion disturbances (120 fewer/1000), revision procedures (164 fewer/1000), and infective complications (178 fewer/1000). The evidence to support manual reduction over IMF for the intraoperative control of fracture fragments and occlusion was derived from few studies with an unclear risk of bias, and the quality was low. The results were not different when condylar fractures were present. The overall certainty of evidence was moderate. Clinicians should select the appropriate technique based on the injury pattern, and the treating surgeon’s experience and available resources.
A new classification of mandibular fractures
2022, International Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery
There is no accepted method of reporting mandibular fracture that reflects incidence, treatment and outcome for individual cases. As most series include anatomical site only for all fractures, the aim was to establish a new method to report fractures based on a systematic review of the literature and an internal audit. The classification proposed is: Class I; condyle, II; angle, IIc; II + condyle, III; body/symphysis, IIIc; III + condyle, IV; multiple fractures not including condyle, IVc; IV + condyle, V; bilateral condyle ± other fracture(s). A total of 10,971 adult and 914 paediatric cases were analyzed through systematic review, and 833 from the regional audit. Only 32% (14/44) of reported series could be reclassified which, when added to the audit data, showed Class IV was most common (29%), with similar proportions of Class III, Class IIIc and Class II (18–23%). External validation (literature review) in terms of treatment and outcome was non-informative, but the internal validation (audit) demonstrated an increasing requirement for adding maxillomandibular fixation (MMF) to open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) as class increased. The heterogeneity of data reporting found in the systematic review confirms the need for a classification such as this, likely to enhance comparison of varying management protocols.
Incidence of maxillofacial fractures in motor vehicle accidents treated in Dubai
2021, Saudi Dental Journal
To analyze the incidence of maxillofacial fractures due to motor vehicle accidents in Dubai, as well as age, sex, etiology, patterns, treatment, and complications. To compare the findings with similar studies and provide recommendations for the prevention and management of these fractures.
A 7-year retrospective study of maxillofacial fractures due to motor vehicle accidents was done.
We found that most of the accidents took place in December, and the majority of the patients were pedestrians (27%). Male to female ratio was 6:1, and patients in their third decade of life were the most affected (39%). The parasymphysis was the most prominently affected region (27.7%), followed by the orbital bone (18.6%). Open reduction surgery was done in 56% of the cases, and postoperative complications were found in 18.4%.
Pedestrians were most commonly involved in the accidents. An increase in awareness, trauma centers, and better facilities would perhaps improve the management of such fractures.
Is there enough evidence to regularly apply bone screws for intermaxillary fixation in mandibular fractures?
2015, Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery
Citation Excerpt :
Malocclusion rates for mandibular fractures ranged from approximately 3.4 to 6.7% when using techniques such as arch bars.6,33 With IMFSs averaging approximately 15 minutes to apply, all studies showed a decrease in operative time compared with the average of 45 minutes for the arch bar appliance.5,11,17,31 Oral hygiene is easier to maintain when less hardware is covering the teeth, resulting in better oral hygiene scores for IMFSs compared with arch bars or interdental wiring.10,11,17,34
Intermaxillary fixation (IMF) is traditionally achieved with arch bars; however, this method has several well-known disadvantages and other techniques, such as bone screws, are available. This study evaluated current evidence regarding these IMF screws (IMFSs) for mandibular trauma and to assess whether this allows a change of treatment protocol for IMF.
A systematic electronic literature search was conducted in the PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane databases. Titles and abstracts retrieved from the search were screened and evaluated for inclusion and exclusion criteria. The full text of all relevant articles was read and citation lists were checked for any missing references. All randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were subjected to a quality assessment. Included articles were checked for outcome measurements concerning occlusion, operative time, oral hygiene, root trauma, wire-stick injuries, and mucosa overgrowth.
Twenty-two articles (17 case series, 4 RCTs, and 1 cohort study) were included. None of the RCTs scored high methodologic results in the quality assessment. The results suggest IMFSs have similar malocclusion rates as arch bars, fewer wire-stick injuries, improved oral hygiene, and shorter operative time. Root damage is less likely to occur with self-drilling screws and seldom requires treatment.
Although the methodologic quality of the included studies is poor, self-drilling IMFSs are recommended for temporary per-operative IMF of noncomminuted mandibular fractures. More high-quality studies are required to allow an evidence-based change of protocol.

View all citing articles on Scopus

^☆: Correspondence and requests for offprints to: A.M. Fordyce Consultant Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeon, Torbay Hospital, Lawes Bridge, Torquay TQ2 7AA, UK

View full text

Regular ArticleIntermaxillary fixation is not usually necessary to reduce mandibular fractures☆

Abstract

J Maxillofac Surg

Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg

Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg

Fractures of the facial skeleton, 2nd edn

Regular Article
Intermaxillary fixation is not usually necessary to reduce mandibular fractures☆