Retrospective Analysis of Patients Surgically Treated for Maxillofacial Trauma: A Single-Centre Experience

Year 2026, Volume: 23 Issue: 1 , 139 - 146 , 27.03.2026

Ayhan Sönmez , Metin Ocak , İsmail Bülbüloğlu , Cihan Aykaç , Burak Bilgiç , Doğukan Can Öztürk , Umut Tuncel

https://doi.org/10.35440/hutfd.1857751

https://izlik.org/JA29EE27XW

Abstract

 Background: This study aimed to identify regional trauma patterns by evaluating demographic characteristics, trauma etiologies, fracture localisations, and surgical treatment methods in patients who underwent surgical management for maxillofacial trauma (MFT).

Materials and Methods: This retrospective study included 182 patients who received surgical treatment for MFT between January 2021 and June 2025. Demographic data, trauma etiologies, fracture sites, fracture types, and surgical techniques were reviewed using patient medical records and the hospital information system. Fractures were classified based on anatomical location and number.

Results: The majority of patients were male (85.7%), with a mean age of 38 years. Assault was the most common cause of trauma. Single fractures were observed in 67.6% of cases, while 32.4% presented with multiple fractures. Among isolated fractures, the mandible (34.1%) and zygoma (25.3%) were the most frequently affected sites. In multiple fractures, the most common combinations involved the maxilla (28.6%), mandible (24.4%), and nasal bones (22.7%). Of the 132 mandibular fractures, subcondylar fractures were the most prevalent (29.5%). Le Fort II fractures were the most common maxillary fractures, tripod fractures predominated among zygomatic fractures, and anterior wall involvement was most frequent in frontal sinus fractures. Of the total 235 fractures, 201 were treated with open reduction and internal fixation, while 34 underwent closed reduction.

Conclusions: MFTs in Samsun province predominantly affected young male patients, with assault and traffic accidents being the leading etiologies. Mandibular and zygomatic fractures were the most common fracture types. These findings provide a better understanding of regional MFT patterns.

Keywords

Maxillary fractures , Maxillofacial trauma , Mandibular fractures , Surgical approach , Zygomatic fractures

Ethical Statement

This study was approved by the Samsun University Clinical Research Ethics Committee (approval no: 2022/10/6, date: October 19, 2022).

Supporting Institution

This study received no financial support from any institution or organization.

Thanks

The authors thank the healthcare staff involved in the study.

Maksillofasiyal Travma Nedeniyle Cerrahi Tedavi Uygulanan Hastaların Retrospektif Analizi: Tek Merkez Deneyimi

https://izlik.org/JA29EE27XW

Abstract

Amaç: Bu çalışmanın amacı, kliniğimizde maksillofasiyal travma (MFT) nedeniyle cerrahi tedavi uygulanan hastaların demografik özellikleri, travma etiyolojileri, kırık lokalizasyonları ve cerrahi tedavi yöntemlerini değerlendirerek bölgesel travma paternlerini ortaya koymaktır.
Materyal ve metod: Bu retrospektif çalışmaya Ocak 2021–Haziran 2025 tarihleri arasında MFT nedeniyle cerrahi tedavi uygulanan 182 hasta dahil edildi. Demografik veriler, travma etiyolojileri, kırık lokalizasyonları, kırık tipleri ve uygulanan cerrahi teknikler hasta dosyaları ve hastane bilgi sistemi üzerinden geriye dönük olarak incelendi. Kırıklar anatomik lokalizasyonlarına ve sayılarına göre sınıflandırıldı.
Bulgular: Hastaların %85,7’si erkek olup, ortalama yaş 38 idi. Travmanın en sık nedeni darp olarak saptandı. Olguların %67,6’sında tek kırık, %32,4’ünde ise çoklu kırık mevcuttu. İzole kırıklar arasında en sık mandibula (%34,1) ve zigoma (%25,3) yer aldı. Çoklu kırıklarda en sık kombinasyonlar maksilla (%28,6), mandibula (%24,4) ve nazal kemikler (%22,7) idi. Toplam 132 mandibula kırığının en sık alt tipi subkondiler kırıklar (%29,5) olarak belirlendi. Maksilla kırıkları içinde en sık Le Fort II, zigomatik kırıklar içinde tripod tipi, frontal sinüs kırıkları içinde ise ön duvar tutulumu gözlendi. Toplam 235 kırığın 201’i açık redüksiyon ve internal fiksasyon, 34’ü ise kapalı redüksiyon ile tedavi edildi.
Sonuç: Samsun ilinde MFT’ler en sık genç erkeklerde görülmekte olup, başlıca etiyolojik faktörler darp ve trafik kazalarıdır. Mandibula ve zigoma kırıkları en sık saptanan kırık tipleridir. Bu bulgular bölgesel maksillofasiyal travma paternlerinin anlaşılmasına katkı sağlamaktadır.

Keywords

Cerrahi yaklaşım , Maksiller kırıklar , Maksillofasiyal travma , Mandibular kırıklar , Zigoma kırıkları

Ethical Statement

Çalışmamız, Samsun Klinik Araştırmalar Etik Kurulu tarafından onaylanmıştır (Protokol No: SÜKAEK-2022/10-6, Tarih: 19 Ekim 2022). Araştırma, Helsinki Bildirgesi ilkelerine uygun olarak yürütülmüştür.

Supporting Institution

Bu çalışma için herhangi bir kurum veya kuruluştan finansal destek alınmamıştır.

Thanks

Yazarlar, çalışmada görev alan sağlık personeline teşekkür eder.

References

• 1. Lee KH, Snape L, Steenberg LJ, Kelly C. Trends and aetiology of maxillofacial fractures in Australia: A 15-year study. Injury. 2021;52(4):872–8. 2. Zix JA, Schaller B, Lieger O, Saulacic N, Thorén H. Incidence, aetiology and pattern of mandibular fractures in central Switzerland. Swiss Med Wkly. 2011;141:w13207.
• 3. Abosadegh MM, Rahman SA, Saddki N, Abu Hassan MI. Epidemiology and aetiology of maxillofacial fractures in Yemen: a 10-year retrospective study. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2020;49(12):1579-88.
• 4. Kaya Y, Yavuz MS, Şimşek S. Evaluation of maxillofacial fractures in the Black Sea region of Turkey: a 10-year retrospective study. Ulus Travma Acil Cerrahi Derg 2019;25(3):238–45.
• 5. Gassner R, Tuli T, Hächl O, Rudisch A, Ulmer H. Cranio-maxillofacial trauma: a 10-year review of 9,543 cases with 21,067 injuries. J Craniomaxillofac Surg. 2003;31(1):51-61.
• 6. Strong EB, Murnick J, Sykes JM. Patterns and evolving management of facial trauma. Oper Tech Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2021;32(3):194-201.
• 7. Stanescu AL, Gokhin DS, Patel A. Frontal sinus and midface trauma: current management principles. Facial Plast Surg. 2022;38(4):389-97.
• 8. Aksu NM, Aksu F, Tunçel Ö. Patterns of interpersonal violence in Northern Turkey. J Forensic Leg Med. 2020;72:101936. 9. Ellis E. Fractures of the mandible. Dent Clin North Am. 2013;57(3):525-51.
• 10. Hwang K, Kim DH, Lee HJ. Zygomatic fractures revisited: a review of classification, biomechanics, and clinical outcomes. Arch Craniofac Surg. 2022;23(4):175-82.
• 11. Chung SY, Chung SM. Zygomatic fractures: a review of classification and management. Arch Craniofac Surg. 2019;20(5):305-13.
• 12. Smith TL, Han JK, Loehrl TA, Rhee JS. Management of frontal sinus fractures. Am J Rhinol. 2005;19(4):355-60. 13. Telli B, Topal M, Özdemir F, Uğurlu AM. A retrospective epidemiological analysis of maxillofacial fractures. J Stomatol Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2024;133(2):102-110.
• 14. Boynuyoğun E, Aygün C, Koçer U. Maksillofasiyal travmaların epidemiyolojisi ve tedavi sonuçları: 9 yıllık retrospektif çalışma. Ankara Eğit Araşt Hast Derg 2025;57(3):137-41.
• 15. Yaşar M, Bayram A, Doğan M, Sağit M, Kaya A, Özcan İ, et al. Retrospective analysis of surgically managed maxillofacial fractures. Turk Arch Otorhinolaryngol. 2016;54(1):5-9.
• 16. Juncar RI, Tent PA, Harangus A, Juncar M. Patterns of facial fractures and associated soft tissue injuries: a retrospective study on 1007 patients. Acta Clin Croat. 2022;61(3):412-20.
• 17. Shuen AOW, Hong CYL, Ismail HB, Ting LT, George NS, Hanapi NS, et al. Retrospective study on facial fractures in adults. Malays J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2020;18(1):1-4.
• 18. El-Anwar MW, Elshiekh E, Awad A, Elsayed AM, Alshawadfy M. Pediatric versus adult maxillofacial fractures. Egypt J Otolaryngol. 2022;38:168.
• 19. Kadanthode M, Chaudhary Z, Sharma P, Mohanty S, Sharma C. Single institute audit of maxillofacial trauma cases before and during COVID-19 pandemic. Craniomaxillofac Trauma Reconstr. 2023;16(2):102-11. 20. Asan CY, Mursalov E, Demirbaş AE, Soylu E, Bilge S, Topan C. Evaluation of mandibular fracture patterns and treatment. Ann Med Res. 2023;30(5):540–45.
• 21. Alyahya A, Bin Ahmed A, Nusair Y, Ababtain R, Alhussain A, Alshafei A. Mandibular condylar fracture: a systematic review of systematic reviews and a proposed algorithm for management. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2020;58(6):625-31.
• 22. Daneste H, Bayat P. The prevalence of maxillary fractures in trauma patients referred to Shahid Rajaei Hospital in Shiraz from 2011 to 2021. J Craniomaxillofac Res. 2022;9(2):81–6.
• 23. Hernandez EF, Barrientos-Villegas S, Aguilera-Callejas DE, Gomez-Gonzalez JM, Cortes-Contreras AP, Gomez-Gonzalez J. Le Fort fractures: a review. Int Surg J. 2024;11(6):1047–50.
• 24. Lizano Guevara F, Sáenz Araya D, Baizan Orias SD, Sevilla Torres E, Rojas Peláez A, Fernandez Vinocour D. Facial Fractures Associated With Craniomaxillofacial Trauma in Adults: A Literature Review. Cureus. 2025 Aug 18;17(8):e90382.
• 25. Dudde F, Schuck O, Schunk J, Barbarewicz F, Giese M, Bergmann W. Patterns of ZMC and Le Fort fractures: a changing face. J Clin Med. 2024;13(16):4662.
• 26. Mohan A, Shah S, Adams W. Contemporary concepts in orbital blow-out fractures: biomechanics and management. Ophthalmic Plast Reconstr Surg. 2023;39(2):156-62.
• 27. AlQahtani A, AlQurashi L, Turkistani K. Patterns and management of orbital fractures in facial trauma. J Craniofac Surg. 2021;32(5):e437-41.
• 28. Youssef SALY, Raghoebar II, Helmers R, de Lange J, Dubois L. Redefining and Identifying Evidence-Based Indications for Open Reduction and Internal Fixation in Mandibular Condylar Fractures: A Comprehensive Systematic Review and Evidence Analysis. Craniomaxillofac Trauma Reconstr. 2025;18(2):25.
• 29. Rallis G, Mourouzis C. Contemporary management of condylar and mandibular fractures: an evidence-based review. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2021;50(7):920-8.