PDF herunterladen
CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 · Int Arch Otorhinolaryngol 2018; 22(02): 181-189
DOI: 10.1055/s-0037-1604056
Systematic Review
Thieme Revinter Publicações Ltda Rio de Janeiro, Brazil

Comparison of Bite Force with Locking Plates versus Non-Locking Plates in the Treatment of Mandibular Fractures: A Meta-Analysis

José Cristiano Ramos Glória
1   Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Universidade Federal dos Vales do Jequitinhonha e Mucuri, Diamantina, MG, Brazil
,
Ighor Andrade Fernandes
1   Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Universidade Federal dos Vales do Jequitinhonha e Mucuri, Diamantina, MG, Brazil
,
Esmeralda Maria da Silveira
2   Department of Dentistry, Universidade Federal dos Vales do Jequitinhonha e Mucuri, Diamantina, MG, Brazil
,
Glaciele Maria de Souza
1   Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Universidade Federal dos Vales do Jequitinhonha e Mucuri, Diamantina, MG, Brazil
,
Ricardo Lopes Rocha
2   Department of Dentistry, Universidade Federal dos Vales do Jequitinhonha e Mucuri, Diamantina, MG, Brazil
,
Endi Lanza Galvão
3   Research Department, Centro de Pesquisas Rene Rachou, Belo Horizonte, MG, Brazil
,
Saulo Gabriel Moreira Falci
1   Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Universidade Federal dos Vales do Jequitinhonha e Mucuri, Diamantina, MG, Brazil
› Institutsangaben
Weitere Informationen

Publikationsverlauf

01. April 2017

09. Mai 2017

Publikationsdatum:
14. Juli 2017 (online)

   Lizenzen und Reprints

Abstract

Introduction Mandibular fractures represent a high percentage of all facial fractures, and the bite force is a fundamental parameter to measure the actual mandibular function and, subsequently, the masticatory efficiency and quality of life.

Objectives The purpose of the present systematic review was to verify if there is any difference in the bite forces of patients with mandibular fractures fixed by locking or non-locking plates, testing the null hypothesis of no difference in this parameter.

Data Synthesis A systematic review of the literature was conducted using four databases (PubMed, Virtual Health Library, Web of Science and Science Direct) without restrictions as to publication date or language. We found 3,039 abstracts, and selected 4 articles for this review.

Conclusion The overall results show better performance in bite force for the locking plates when compared with the non-locking plates in the incisor region (mean deviation [MD]: 1.18; 95% confidence interval [95%CI]: 0.13–2.23), right molar region (MD: 4.71; 95%CI: 0.63–8.79) and left molar region (MD: 10.34; 95%CI: 4.55–16.13). Although the results of this study indicated a better bite force result with the locking plates, there is still no sufficient evidence to support this information safely.

Keywords

bite force - mandibular fracture - fracture fixation - bone plates - internal fixators
 

  • References

  • 1 Almahdi HM, Higzi MA. Maxillofacial fractures among Sudanese children at Khartoum Dental Teaching Hospital. BMC Res Notes 2016; 9: 120
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Ribeiro Ribeiro AL, da Silva Gillet LC, de Vasconcelos HG, de Castro Rodrigues L, de Jesus Viana Pinheiro J, de Melo Alves-Junior S. Facial Fractures: Large Epidemiologic Survey in Northern Brazil Reveals Some Unique Characteristics. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2016; 74 (12) 2480.e1-2480.e12
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Singaram M, , G SV, Udhayakumar RK. Prevalence, pattern, etiology, and management of maxillofacial trauma in a developing country: a retrospective study. J Korean Assoc Oral Maxillofac Surg 2016; 42 (04) 174-181
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Agarwal M, Mohammad S, Singh RK, Singh V. Prospective randomized clinical trial comparing bite force in 2-mm locking plates versus 2-mm standard plates in treatment of mandibular fractures. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2011; 69 (07) 1995-2000
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Nabil Y. Evaluation of the effect of different mandibular fractures on the temporomandibular joint using magnetic resonance imaging: five years of follow-up. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2016; 45 (11) 1495-1499
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Conforte JJ, Alves CP, Sánchez MdelP, Ponzoni D. Impact of trauma and surgical treatment on the quality of life of patients with facial fractures. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2016; 45 (05) 575-581
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Champy M, Loddé JP, Schmitt R, Jaeger JH, Muster D. Mandibular osteosynthesis by miniature screwed plates via a buccal approach. J Maxillofac Surg 1978; 6 (01) 14-21
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Champy M, Wilk A, Schnebelen JM. [Tretment of mandibular fractures by means of osteosynthesis without intermaxillary immobilization according to F.X. Michelet's technic]. Zahn Mund Kieferheilkd Zentralbl 1975; 63 (04) 339-341
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Haug RH, Street CC, Goltz M. Does plate adaptation affect stability? A biomechanical comparison of locking and nonlocking plates. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2002; 60 (11) 1319-1326
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Alpert B, Gutwald R, Schmelzeisen R. New innovations in craniomaxillofacial fixation: the 2.0 lock system. Keio J Med 2003; 52 (02) 120-127
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Collins CP, Pirinjian-Leonard G, Tolas A, Alcalde R. A prospective randomized clinical trial comparing 2.0-mm locking plates to 2.0-mm standard plates in treatment of mandible fractures. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2004; 62 (11) 1392-1395
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Gutwald R, Alpert B, Schmelzeisen R. Principle and stability of locking plates. Keio J Med 2003; 52 (01) 21-24
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Chrcanovic BR. Locking versus non-locking plate fixation in the management of mandibular fractures: a meta-analysis. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2014; 43 (10) 1243-1250
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Giri KY, Sahu P, Rastogi S. , et al. Bite Force Evaluation of Conventional Plating System Versus Locking Plating System for Mandibular Fracture. J Maxillofac Oral Surg 2015; 14 (04) 972-978
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Kumar S, Gattumeedhi SR, Sankhla B, Garg A, Ingle E, Dagli N. Comparative evaluation of bite forces in patients after treatment of mandibular fractures with miniplate osteosynthesis and internal locking miniplate osteosynthesis. J Int Soc Prev Community Dent 2014; 4 (Suppl. 01) S26-S31
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Rastogi S, Reddy MP, Swarup AG, Swarup D, Choudhury R. Assessment of Bite Force in Patients Treated with 2.0-mm Traditional Miniplates versus 2.0-mm Locking Plates for Mandibular Fracture. Craniomaxillofac Trauma Reconstr 2016; 9 (01) 62-68
    Artikel in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Borenstein M, Hedges LV, Higgins J, Rothstein HR. Random-Effects Model. Introduction to Meta-analysis 2009; 69-75
    Google Scholar
  • 18 Higgins JP, Thompson SG. Quantifying heterogeneity in a meta-analysis. Stat Med 2002; 21 (11) 1539-1558
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Zhan S, Jiang Y, Cheng Z, Ye J. A meta-analysis comparing the 2.0-mm locking plate system with the 2.0-mm nonlocking plate system in treatment of mandible fractures. J Craniofac Surg 2014; 25 (06) 2094-2097
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Hatch JP, Shinkai RS, Sakai S, Rugh JD, Paunovich ED. Determinants of masticatory performance in dentate adults. Arch Oral Biol 2001; 46 (07) 641-648
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Koc D, Dogan A, Bek B. Bite force and influential factors on bite force measurements: a literature review. Eur J Dent 2010; 4 (02) 223-232
    Artikel in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Okiyama S, Ikebe K, Nokubi T. Association between masticatory performance and maximal occlusal force in young men. J Oral Rehabil 2003; 30 (03) 278-282
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Said MM, Otomaru T, Aimaijiang Y, Li N, Taniguchi H. Association Between Masticatory Function and Oral Health-Related Quality of Life in Partial Maxillectomy Patients. Int J Prosthodont 2016; 29 (06) 561-564
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Henderson CE, Lujan T, Bottlang M, Fitzpatrick DC, Madey SM, Marsh JL. Stabilization of distal femur fractures with intramedullary nails and locking plates: differences in callus formation. Iowa Orthop J 2010; 30: 61-68
    Google Scholar
  • 25 Shrier I. Cochrane Reviews: new blocks on the kids. Br J Sports Med 2003; 37 (06) 473-474
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Bujtár P, Simonovics J, Váradi K, Sándor GK, Avery CM. The biomechanical aspects of reconstruction for segmental defects of the mandible: a finite element study to assess the optimisation of plate and screw factors. J Craniomaxillofac Surg 2014; 42 (06) 855-862
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Grohmann I, Raith S, Kesting M. , et al. Experimental biomechanical study of the primary stability of different osteosynthesis systems for mandibular reconstruction with an iliac crest graft. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2013; 51 (08) 942-947
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Miller EI, Acquaviva AE, Eisenmann DJ, Stone RT, Kraus KH. Perpendicular pull-out force of locking versus non-locking plates in thin cortical bone using a canine mandibular ramus model. Vet Surg 2011; 40 (07) 870-874
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Goulart DR, Kemmoku DT, Noritomi PY, de Moraes M. Development of a Titanium Plate for Mandibular Angle Fractures with a Bone Defect in the Lower Border: Finite Element Analysis and Mechanical Test. J Oral Maxillofac Res 2015; 6 (03) e5
    Google Scholar
  • 30 Pepato AO, Palinkas M, Regalo SC. , et al. Effect of surgical treatment of mandibular fracture: electromyographic analysis, bite force, and mandibular mobility. J Craniofac Surg 2014; 25 (05) 1714-1720
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 31 Gerlach KL, Schwarz A. Bite forces in patients after treatment of mandibular angle fractures with miniplate osteosynthesis according to Champy. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2002; 31 (04) 345-348
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 32 Gupta A, Singh V, Mohammad S. Bite force evaluation of mandibular fractures treated with microplates and miniplates. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2012; 70 (08) 1903-1908
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 33 Kshirsagar R, Jaggi N, Halli R. Bite force measurement in mandibular parasymphyseal fractures: a preliminary clinical study. Craniomaxillofac Trauma Reconstr 2011; 4 (04) 241-244
    Artikel in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 34 Araújo SCCSd, Vieira MM, Gasparotto CA, Bommarito S. Bite Force Analysis in Different Types of Angle Malocclusions. Rev CEFAC 2014; 16 (05) 1567-1578
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 35 de Medeiros RC, Sigua EA, Navarro P, Olate S, Albergaria Barbosa JR. In Vitro Mechanical Analysis of Different Techniques of Internal Fixation of Combined Mandibular Angle and Body Fractures. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2016; 74 (04) 778-785
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 36 Poon CC, Verco S. Evaluation of fracture healing and subimplant bone response following fixation with a locking miniplate and screw system for mandibular angle fractures in a sheep model. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2013; 42 (06) 736-745
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar