Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

Mandible fractures


Published on

Published in: Education, Health & Medicine
  • Njce! Thanks for sharing.
    Are you sure you want to  Yes  No
    Your message goes here
  • We specialize in surface treatment including: polishing raw products’ surface of Steel, aluminum and electroplating as: zinc-chrome, nickel-chrome, hard chrome, copper, nickel-zinc alloy plating. Our range of products are mostly served automobile, motocycle manufacturing industries and electronic industry, and some are used for household production or construction..
    Are you sure you want to  Yes  No
    Your message goes here
  • I would like to invite trauma enthusiasts to become members of our new Society. Membership is free. There is no charge. I am keen that this includes the entire professional remit of care, from roadside to rehabilitation and I am therefore looking for enthusiastic members worldwide, who may wish to contribute to the site. There is an education section, news feed, YouTube channel and a forum which I hope members will use to discuss various trauma related topics. If anyone is interested in publishing online we have facility for this too. Please have a look. It has only just been launched, so there is still much to do. I hope you will find it interesting.
    Are you sure you want to  Yes  No
    Your message goes here

Mandible fractures

  2. 2. SOME FACTS 2  Mandibular fracture > middle third fracture (anatomical factor)  Minor mandibular fracture may be associated with head injury owing to the cranio-mandibular articulation  Mandibular fracture may compromise the patency of the airway in particular with loss of consciousness----BILATERAL PARASYMPHYSIS FRACTURE  Fracture of mandible occurred with frontal impact force as low as 425 lb (190 Kg) {Condylar fracture}
  3. 3. 3  Fracture of condyle regarded as a safety mechanism to the patient  Frontal force of 800-900 lb (350-400 Kg) is required to cause symphysial fracture  Mandible was more sensitive to lateral impact than frontal one---- ANGLE FRACTURE > CONDYLAR FRACTURE  Long canine tooth and partially erupted wisdoms represent line of relatively weakness
  4. 4. Anatomical considerations 4
  5. 5. Anatomical considerations 5 Lateral pterygoid Medial pterygoid Genioglossus
  6. 6. 6 Blood supply  Endosteal supply via the ID artery and vein  Periosteal supply, important in aging due to diminishes and disappearance of alveolar artery (Supra Periosteal Fixation) Bradley 1972 Nerve  Damage of inferior dental nerve  Facial palsy by direct trauma to ramus  Damage to mandibular division of facial nerve
  7. 7. Etiology of mandibular fractures 7 Vehicular accidents 43% Assaults,interpersonal violence,etc 34% Fall 7% Sports 4% Industries mishaps or work accidents 10% Pathological fractures or miscellaneous 2%
  8. 8. Classification of mandibular fractures 8  Simple or closed  Compound or open  Comminuted  Greenstick  Pathologic  Multiple  Impacted  Atrophic  Indirect  Complicated or complex
  9. 9. SIMPLE FRACTURE  Linear fracture which are not in communication with the exterior – Rowe & Killeys  Kruger – is one in which the overlying integument is intact.
  10. 10. COMPOUND FRACTURE  A fracture in which an external wound involving the skin, mucosa, or periodontal membrane communicates with the break in the bone.
  11. 11. COMMINUTED FRACTURE  A fracture in which bone is splintered or crushed.
  12. 12. MULTIPLE FRACTURE A variety in which there are two or more lines of fracture on the same bone not communicating with each other.
  13. 13. GREENSTICK FRACTURE A fracture in which one cortex of the bone is broken, the other cortex been bent. SEEN IN CHILDREN
  15. 15. IMPACTED FRACTURE A fracture in which one segment is firmly driven into another.
  16. 16. ATROPHIC  A spontaneous fracture resulting from atrophy of the bone, as in edentulous mandible
  17. 17.  INDIRECT FRACTURE A fracture at a point distant from the site of injury  COMPLICATED/COMPLEX – A fracture in which there is considerable injury to the adjacent soft tissue or adjacent parts; may be simple or compound
  18. 18. Classification by anatomic region 18 Dingman and Natvig  Condylar process  Coronoid  Ramus  Angle  Body  Symphysis  Parasymphysis  Alveolar process
  19. 19. Body 30-40 % Angle 25-30 % Condyle 15-17 % Symphysis 7-15 % Ramus 3-9 % Alveolar 2-4 % Coronoid Process 1-2 %
  20. 20. HORIZONTALLY UNFAVOURABLE FRACTURES The masseter ,temporalis and medial pterygoid cause upward and medial pterygoid cause upward and medial displacement of the proximal segment VERTICALLY UNFAVOURABLE FRACTURES Medial and lateral pterygoids result in medial displacement of the proximal segment 20
  23. 23. Diagnosis of mandibular fractures 24  History  Clinical examination  Radiological examination
  24. 24. Clinical examination Mouth opening Occlusion Lacerations Coleman’s sign Step deformity (shoulder defect) Inspection Tenderness Crepitation Mobility of the teeth Foreign bodies Palpation
  25. 25. COLEMAN’S SIGN
  27. 27. Radiographic examination  Plain radiograph  OPG  Lateral oblique  PA mandible  Lower occlusal  CT scan  3-D CT  MRI 28
  28. 28. Principles of mandibular fractures management 30  Reduction  Fixation  Immobilization
  29. 29. Reduction 31  Closed reduction  Open reduction
  30. 30. Closed reduction 32 Indications a) Nondisplaced favorable fractures b) Grossly comminuted fractures c) Significant loss of overlying soft tissue d) Edentulous mandibular fractures e) Mandibular fractures in children f) Coronoid process fractures g) Condylar fractures
  31. 31. CLOSED REDUCTION Advantages • Inexpensive • Simple procedure • Gives occlusion some “leeway "to adjust itself • No foreign body left in the body Disadvantages • Cannot obtain absolute stability • Long period of IMF • PossibleTMJ sequelae • Decrease range of motion of mandible • Impaired pulmonary function
  32. 32. Open reduction 34  Displaced unfavourable fractures Multiple fractures of the facial bones  Midface fractures and displaced bilateral condylar fracture  Fractures of an edentulous mandible with severe displacement of fracture segment  Edentulous maxilla opposing a mandibular fracture  Delay of treatment and interposition of soft tissue between noncontacting displaced fractures fragments  Malunion  Conditions contraindicating Intermaxillary fixation
  33. 33. OPEN REDUCTION Advantages • Early return to normal jaw function • Avoidance of airway problems • Absolute stability • Bone fragments re- approximated exactly by visualization • Low rate of malunion /nonunion • Lower infection rate • Avoids IMF Disadvantages • Morbidity of surgical procedure • Significant operating time • Expensive hardware • Secondary procedure for removal of hardware
  34. 34. Removal of a tooth from the fracture line ABSOLUTE INDICATION RELATIVE INDICATION  Vertical fracture  Dislocation or subluxation  Periapical infection  Infected fracture line  Acute pericoronitis  Functionless  Advanced caries  Advanced periodontal disease  Doubtful teeth  Teeth involved in untreated fractures presenting more than 3 days after injury
  35. 35. Methods of immobilization  Osteosynthesis without Intermaxillary fixation  Intermaxillary fixation  Intermaxillary fixation with Osteosynthesis
  36. 36. Methods of immobilization 38 INTERMAXILLARY FIXATION Bonded brackets Dental wiring  Direct  Eyelet Arch bars Cap splints IMF screws
  37. 37. Various dental wiring techniques 39  Essig’s wiring- (single –double wiring) (Charles J. Essig )  Gilmer’s wiring  Risdon’s wiring – (Twisted labial wire) (E.Fulton Risdon)  Ivy eyelet wiring (Robert H.Ivy )  Clovehitch wiring  Col . Stout’s multiloop wiring (R.A.Stout)  Button wiring (Varaztad Hovhannes Kazanjian )
  38. 38. Methods of immobilization 40 INTERMAXILLARY FIXATIONWITH OSTEOSYNTHESIS  Transosseous wiring  Circumferential wiring  External pin fixation  Bone clamps  Transfixation with Kirschner wire
  39. 39. Period of immobilization 41 Young adult with Fracture of the angle receiving Early treatment in which Tooth removed from fracture line If a) Tooth retained in fracture line : add 1wk b) Fracture at the Symphysis: add 1 wk c) Age 40yrs and over : add 1or 2 wks d) Children and adolescents : subtract 1 wk 3 weeks
  40. 40. Methods of immobilization 42 OSTEOSYNTHESISWITHOUT INTERMAXILLARY FIXATION  Compression plates  Miniplates  Lag screws
  41. 41. Rigid internal fixation 43  Dynamic compression plates  Eccentric dynamic compression plates  Locking plates---bicortical screws  Lag screws
  42. 42. Indications of Rigid Osteosynthesis 44 Fractures in an edentulous part of the body of the mandible Concomitant fractures of the body and condyle Patients in whom IMF is contraindicated Fractures associated with closed head injury Continuity defects Fractures in which nonunion or malunion has occurred
  43. 43. Limitations and drawbacks  Procedure is technically demanding, requires precise plate adaptation  Danger of gap appearing in lingual border &alveolar region causing malocclusion  All systems developed for this purpose require additional modification such as eccentric DCP or tension band in upper alveolus
  44. 44. .Load-Bearing versus Load-Sharing Fixation  LOAD-BEARING FIXATION is a device that is of sufficient strength and rigidity that it can bear the entire load applied to the mandible during functional activities  comminuted fractures of the mandible  those fractures where there is very little bony interface because of atrophy,  those injuries that have resulted in a loss of a portion of the mandible (defect fractures)
  45. 45. Load sharing devices  Load-sharing fixation is any form of internal fixation that is of insufficient stability to bear all of the functional loads applied across the fracture by the masticatory system.  requires solid bony fragments on each side of the fracture that can bear some of the functional load  Fractures that can be stabilized adequately with load-sharing fixation devices are simple linear fractures,and constitute the majority of mandibular fractures Eg;-2.0 mm miniplating systems Lag screw techniques
  46. 46. Complications of rigid internal fixation 48 Infection Minor - not necessitating the plate removal Major - necessitating the plate removal Sensory Inferior alveolar nerve Mental nerve Motor Marginal mandibular nerve
  47. 47. Complications of rigid internal fixation 49 Malunion or nonunion malocclusion Restriction of craniofacial growth Hypertrophic scar formation Joint pain Injury to tooth roots Metal allergy
  48. 48. Champy’s Osteosynthesis lines 50
  49. 49. Fixation of miniplates for mandibular fractures 51 Angle fracture - superior aspect of the mandible extending on to the broad surface of the external oblique ridge Region between two mental foramina – 2 plates are recommended 1. Subapical region of the Symphysis 2. Inferior border of the mandible Body of the mandible - one plate recommended just below the apices of the teeth but above the inferior alveolar nerve canal
  50. 50. Advantages of the Monocortical miniplate Osteosynthesis 56 Less soft tissue dissection. Less likely to palpable. No necessity for subsequent removal. Decrease the degree of stress shielding. Minimal risk of dental injury. Can also be performed under L.A . Decrease in surgical morbidity.
  51. 51. Limitations and potential complications 57 Not rigid Torsional movements resulting in infection or nonunion, or both Longer plates required to span communited fractures