COMPARISON OF INTERNAL FIXATION METHODS AND MINIMAL INVASIVE SURGICAL APPROACHES IN THE TREATMENT OF MANDIBULAR FRACTURES

Utku Nezih Yılmaz; Fatma Eriş Derkuş; Belgin Gülsün; Can Sezgin; Berivan Yılmaz

COMPARISON OF INTERNAL FIXATION METHODS AND MINIMAL INVASIVE SURGICAL APPROACHES IN THE TREATMENT OF MANDIBULAR FRACTURES

Abstract

Background and Aim: Mandibular fractures are one of the most common fracture types in the maxillofacial region, with condylar and angular fractures being particularly prevalent. In recent years, endoscopic approaches, have become increasingly widespread as alternatives to traditional internal fixation methods, in the treatment of maxillofacial traumas. The endoscopic treatment of mandibular fractures is a minimally invasive technique. The aim of this study is to evaluate and compare the clinical and radiological outcomes of endoscopyassisted open reduction and internal fixation (EAORIF) and conventional open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) in the treatment of mandibular fractures. Materials and Methods: In this study, 18 patients diagnosed with mandibular fractures were randomly divided into two groups. Nine patients underwent EAORIF, while the remaining patients underwent ORIF under general anesthesia. Postoperative evaluations were conducted clinically and radiologically to assess the advantages and disadvantages of both techniques. Results: No significant difference was found in both methods in terms of age, time between trauma and operation, and hospital stay (p>0.05). However, the surgical duration was longer in the EAORIF group (p<0.05). No significant differences were observed between the two groups in terms of occlusion stability and fracture healing (p>0.05). Conclusion: These findings suggest that EAORIF is an effective minimally invasive alternative to conventional ORIF, offering improved postoperative recovery despite its technical complexity.

Keywords

Supporting Institution

This research was supported by Dicle University Scientific Research Projects Coordination Office with project number DİŞ.20.022.

Ethical Statement

Ethics committee approval was received from Dicle University Faculty of Dentistry Local Ethics Committee, dated 24.06.2020 and with protocol number 2020-26.

References

Reference1. Müller R, Schmidt H, Wagner T. Soft tissue complications in open reduction techniques. Injury 2020; 51: 1011-1019.
Reference2. Chen W, Zhang X, Liu Y. Minimally invasive endoscopic techniques in fracture management: a review. J Orthop Surg 2021; 29: 112- 120.
Reference3. De Groen PC. History of the endoscope [scanning our past]. Proc IEEE 2017; 105: 1987-1995.
Reference4. Watson SW, Niamtu J 3rd, Cunningham LL Jr. The endoscopic brow and midface lift. Atlas Oral Maxillofac Surg Clin North Am 2003; 11: 145-155.
Reference5. Cunningham LL Jr, Peterson GP. Historical development of endoscopy. Atlas Oral Maxillofac Surg Clin N Am 2003; 11: 109- 127.
Reference6. Bansal A, Chaudhary D, Kukreja N, Gupta NK, Kukreja U, Bansal J et al. Seeing is believing - Endoscopy in the clinical practice of dentistry: a review of literature. Indian J Dent Sci 2012; 4: 690-693.
Reference7. White RD. Arthroscopy of the temporomandibular joint: technique and operative images. Atlas Oral Maxillofac Surg Clin N Am 2003; 11: 129-144.
Reference8. Nahlieli O, Moshonov J, Zagury A, Michaeli E, Casap N. Endoscopic approach to dental implantology. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2011; 69: 186-191.

Reference9. Bos RR, Ward Booth RP, de Bont LG. Mandibular condyle fractures: a consensus. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg 1999; 37: 87-89.
Reference10. Shakya S, Zhang X, Liu L. Key points in surgical management of mandibular condylar fractures. Chin J Traumatol 2020; 23: 63-70.
Reference11. Al-Moraissi EA, Louvrier A, Colletti G. Does the surgical approach for treating mandibular condylar fractures affect the rate of seventh cranial nerve injuries? A systematic review and metaanalysis based on a new classification for surgical approaches. J Cranio-Maxillofac Surg 2018; 46: 398-412.
Reference12. Brandt MT, Haug RH. Open versus closed reduction of adult mandibular condyle fractures: a review of the literature regarding the evolution of current thoughts on management. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2003; 61: 1324-1332.
Reference13. Ellis E 3rd, Dean J. Rigid fixation of mandibular condyle fractures. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol 1993; 76: 6-15.
Reference14. Schon R, Schramm A, Gellrich NC, Schmelzeisen R. Follow-up of condylar fractures of the mandible in 8 patients at 18 months after transoral endoscopic-assisted open treatment. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2003; 61: 49-54.
Reference15. Schon R, Gutwald R, Schramm A, Gellrich NC, Schmelzeisen R. Endoscopy-assisted open treatment of condylar fractures of the mandible: extraoral vs intraoral approach. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2002; 31: 237-243.
Reference16. Pedroletti F, McCain JP. Endoscopically assisted repair of mandibular angle fractures. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2010; 68: 912- 914.
Reference17. Kellman RM. Endoscopic approach to subcondylar mandible fractures. Facial Plast Surg 2004; 20: 239-247.
Reference 18. Frake PC, Goodman JF, Joshi AS. Feasibility of purely endoscopic intramedullary fixation of mandibular condyle fractures. J Craniofac Surg 2015; 26: 91-93.
Reference19. Gordon PE, Kaban LB, Tagoni JR, Troulis MJ. Minimally invasive oral and maxillofacial surgery trauma. In: Fonseca RJ, editor. Oral and maxillofacial trauma Oxford: Saunders; 2013. p. 828-843.
Reference20. Williams WB, Abukawa H, Shuster V, Kaban LB. A comparison of postoperative edema after intraoral vs. endoscopic mandibular ramus osteotomy. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2003; 61: 8.
Reference21. Kumar A, Yadav N, Singh S, Chauhan N. Minimally invasive (endoscopic-computer assisted) surgery: technique and review. Ann Maxillofac Surg 2016; 6: 159-164.
Reference22. Lee C, Mueller RV, Lee K, Mathes SJ. Endoscopic subcondylar repair. Functional, aesthetic and radiographic outcomes. Plast Reconstr Surg 1998; 102: 1434-1444.
Reference23. Lee C, Stiebel M, Young DM. Cranial nerve VII region of the traumatized facial skeleton: optimizing fracture repair with the endoscope. J Trauma 2000; 48: 423-431.
Reference24. Cavalcanti SCSXB, Taufer B, Rodrigues AF, Luz JGC. Endoscopic surgery versus open reduction treatment of mandibular condyle fractures: a meta-analysis. J Cranio-Maxillofac Surg 2021; 49: 749- 757.
Reference25. Sanati-Mehrizy P, Massenburg BB, Sherif RD, Ingargiola MJ, Motakef S, Taub PJ. Review of endoscopic repair of mandible fractures. J Craniofac Surg 2019; 30: 489-492.
Reference26. Haug RH, Brandt MT. Traditional versus endoscope-assisted open reduction with rigid internal fixation (ORIF) of adult mandibular condyle fractures: a review of the literature regarding current thoughts on management. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2004; 62: 1272-1279.
Reference27. Ellis E, Moss KF, El-Attar A. Ten years of mandibular fractures in analysis of 2317 cases. Oral Surg 1985 ;2: 120-129.

Details

Primary Language

English

Subjects

Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery

Journal Section

Research Article

Authors

Utku Nezih Yılmaz ^*
Türkiye

Fatma Eriş Derkuş
Türkiye

Belgin Gülsün
Türkiye

Can Sezgin This is me
Türkiye

Berivan Yılmaz
Türkiye

Publication Date

April 24, 2025

Submission Date

May 20, 2024

Acceptance Date

March 3, 2025

Published in Issue

Year 2025 Volume: 49 Number: 1

IZ

https://izlik.org/JA98GH23UZ

Cite

RIS / Bibtex

APA

Yılmaz, U. N., Eriş Derkuş, F., Gülsün, B., Sezgin, C., & Yılmaz, B. (2025). COMPARISON OF INTERNAL FIXATION METHODS AND MINIMAL INVASIVE SURGICAL APPROACHES IN THE TREATMENT OF MANDIBULAR FRACTURES. Clinical Dentistry and Research, 49(1), 11-18. https://izlik.org/JA98GH23UZ

AMA

1.Yılmaz UN, Eriş Derkuş F, Gülsün B, Sezgin C, Yılmaz B. COMPARISON OF INTERNAL FIXATION METHODS AND MINIMAL INVASIVE SURGICAL APPROACHES IN THE TREATMENT OF MANDIBULAR FRACTURES. Clin Dent Res. 2025;49(1):11-18. https://izlik.org/JA98GH23UZ

Chicago

Yılmaz, Utku Nezih, Fatma Eriş Derkuş, Belgin Gülsün, Can Sezgin, and Berivan Yılmaz. 2025. “COMPARISON OF INTERNAL FIXATION METHODS AND MINIMAL INVASIVE SURGICAL APPROACHES IN THE TREATMENT OF MANDIBULAR FRACTURES”. Clinical Dentistry and Research 49 (1): 11-18. https://izlik.org/JA98GH23UZ.

EndNote

Yılmaz UN, Eriş Derkuş F, Gülsün B, Sezgin C, Yılmaz B (April 1, 2025) COMPARISON OF INTERNAL FIXATION METHODS AND MINIMAL INVASIVE SURGICAL APPROACHES IN THE TREATMENT OF MANDIBULAR FRACTURES. Clinical Dentistry and Research 49 1 11–18.

IEEE

[1]U. N. Yılmaz, F. Eriş Derkuş, B. Gülsün, C. Sezgin, and B. Yılmaz, “COMPARISON OF INTERNAL FIXATION METHODS AND MINIMAL INVASIVE SURGICAL APPROACHES IN THE TREATMENT OF MANDIBULAR FRACTURES”, Clin Dent Res, vol. 49, no. 1, pp. 11–18, Apr. 2025, [Online]. Available: https://izlik.org/JA98GH23UZ

ISNAD

Yılmaz, Utku Nezih - Eriş Derkuş, Fatma - Gülsün, Belgin - Sezgin, Can - Yılmaz, Berivan. “COMPARISON OF INTERNAL FIXATION METHODS AND MINIMAL INVASIVE SURGICAL APPROACHES IN THE TREATMENT OF MANDIBULAR FRACTURES”. Clinical Dentistry and Research 49/1 (April 1, 2025): 11-18. https://izlik.org/JA98GH23UZ.

JAMA

1.Yılmaz UN, Eriş Derkuş F, Gülsün B, Sezgin C, Yılmaz B. COMPARISON OF INTERNAL FIXATION METHODS AND MINIMAL INVASIVE SURGICAL APPROACHES IN THE TREATMENT OF MANDIBULAR FRACTURES. Clin Dent Res. 2025;49:11–18.

MLA

Yılmaz, Utku Nezih, et al. “COMPARISON OF INTERNAL FIXATION METHODS AND MINIMAL INVASIVE SURGICAL APPROACHES IN THE TREATMENT OF MANDIBULAR FRACTURES”. Clinical Dentistry and Research, vol. 49, no. 1, Apr. 2025, pp. 11-18, https://izlik.org/JA98GH23UZ.

Vancouver

1.Utku Nezih Yılmaz, Fatma Eriş Derkuş, Belgin Gülsün, Can Sezgin, Berivan Yılmaz. COMPARISON OF INTERNAL FIXATION METHODS AND MINIMAL INVASIVE SURGICAL APPROACHES IN THE TREATMENT OF MANDIBULAR FRACTURES. Clin Dent Res [Internet]. 2025 Apr. 1;49(1):11-8. Available from: https://izlik.org/JA98GH23UZ