• Gaye Taylan Filinte, İsmail Mithat Akan, Gülçin Nujen Ayçiçek Çardak, Özay Özkaya Mutlu, and Tayfun Aköz.
• Department of Plastic, Reconstructive and Aesthetic Surgery, Dr. Lutfi Kirdar Kartal Training and Research Hospital, İstanbul, Turkey. gayetaylan@yahoo.com.
• Ulus Travma Acil Cer. 2015 Dec 1; 21 (6): 509-13.

BackgroundThe aim of this study was to compare the efficiency of resorbable and metallic plates in open reduction and internal fixation of mandible fractures in children.MethodsThirty-one patients (mean age, 8.05 years; range 20 months-14 years) were operated on various fractures of the mandible (26 [60.4%] symphysis- parasymphysis, 12 [27.9%] condylar-subcondylar fractures, 5 [11.6%] angulus and ramus fractures). Twelve patients were treated with resorbable plates and 19 patients with metallic plates. Mean follow-up time was 41 months (11-74 months) in the metallic hardware group and was 22 months (8-35 months) in the resorbable plate group. Both groups were investigated for primary bone healing, complications, number of operations, and mandibular growth. The results were discussed below.ResultsBoth groups demonstrated primary bone healing. Minor complications were similar in both groups. The metallic group involved secondary operations for plate removal. Mandibular growth was satisfactory in both groups.ConclusionResorbable plates cost more than the metallic ones; however, when the secondary operations are included in the total cost, resorbable plates were favourable. As mandibular growth and complication parameters are similar in both groups, resorbable plates are favored due to avoidance of potential odontogenic injury, elimination of long-term foreign body retention and provision of adequate stability for rapid bone healing. However, learning curve and concerns for decreased stability against heavy forces of mastication accompanied with the resorbable plates when compared to the metallic ones should be kept in mind.

17 keywords...

hide…