📖 Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery

Fixation of Condylar Fractures

Condylar fractures of the mandible can be challenging to manage due to their location and the functional demands placed on the condylar region. Various fixation techniques have been developed to achieve stable fixation and promote healing. Below is an overview of the different methods of fixation for condylar fractures, including their advantages, disadvantages, and indications.

1. Miniplate Osteosynthesis

• Overview:

  • Miniplate osteosynthesis involves the use of condylar plates and screw systems designed to withstand biochemical forces, minimizing micromotion at the fracture site.

• Primary Bone Healing:

  • Under optimal conditions of stability and fracture reduction, primary bone healing can occur, allowing new bone to form along the fracture surface without the formation of fibrous tissue.

• Plate Placement:

  • High condylar fractures may accommodate only one plate with two screws above and below the fracture line, parallel to the posterior border, providing adequate stability in most cases.
  • For low condylar fractures, two plates may be required. The posterior plate should parallel the posterior ascending ramus, while the anterior plate can be angulated across the fracture line.

• Mechanical Advantage:

  • The use of two miniplates at the anterior and posterior borders of the condylar neck restores tension and compression trajectories, neutralizing functional stresses in the condylar neck.

• Research Findings:

  • Studies have shown that the double mini plate method is the only system able to withstand normal loading forces in cadaver mandibles.

2. Dynamic Compression Plating

• Overview:

  • Dynamic compression plating is generally not recommended for condylar fractures due to the oblique nature of the fractures, which can lead to overlap of fragment ends and loss of ramus height.

• Current Practice:

  • The consensus is that treatment is adequate with miniplates placed in a neutral mode, avoiding the complications associated with dynamic compression plating.

3. Lag Screw Osteosynthesis

• Overview:

  • First described for condylar fractures by Wackerbauer in 1962, lag screws provide a biomechanically advantageous method of fixation.

• Mechanism:

  • A true lag screw has threads only on the distal end, allowing for compression when tightened against the near cortex. This central placement of the screw enhances stability.

• Advantages:

  • Rapid application of rigid fixation and close approximation of fractured parts due to significant compression generated.
  • Less traumatic than miniplates, as there is no need to open the joint capsule.

• Disadvantages:

  • Risk of lateralization and rotation of the condylar head if the screw is not placed centrally.
  • Requires a steep learning curve for proper application.

• Contraindications:

  • Not suitable for cases with loss of bone in the fracture gap or comminution that could lead to displacement when compression is applied.

• Popular Options:

  • The Eckelt screw is one of the most widely used lag screws in current practice.

4. Pin Fixation

• Overview:

  • Pin fixation involves the use of 1.3 mm Kirschner wires (K-wires) placed into the condyle under direct vision.

• Technique:

  • This method requires an open approach to the condylar head and traction applied to the lower border of the mandible. A minimum of three convergent K-wires is typically needed to ensure stability.

5. Resorbable Pins and Plates

• Overview:

  • Resorbable fixation devices may take more than two years to fully resorb. Materials used include self-reinforced poly-L-lactide screws (SR-PLLA), polyglycolide pins, and absorbable alpha-hydroxy polyesters.

• Indications:

  • These materials are particularly useful in pediatric patients or in situations where permanent hardware may not be desirable.

Extraction Patterns for Presurgical Orthodontics

In orthodontics, the extraction pattern chosen can significantly influence treatment outcomes, especially in presurgical orthodontics. The extraction decisions differ based on the type of skeletal malocclusion, specifically Class II and Class III malocclusions. Here’s an overview of the extraction patterns for each type:

Skeletal Class II Malocclusion

• General Approach:
  • In skeletal Class II malocclusion, the goal is to prepare the dental arches for surgical correction, typically involving mandibular advancement.
• Extraction Recommendations:
  • No Maxillary Tooth Extraction: Avoid extracting maxillary teeth, particularly the upper first premolars or any maxillary teeth, to prevent over-retraction of the maxillary anterior teeth. Over-retraction can compromise the planned mandibular advancement.
  • Lower First Premolar Extraction: Extraction of the lower first premolars is recommended. This helps:
    • Level the arch.
    • Correct the proclination of the lower anterior teeth, allowing for better alignment and preparation for surgery.

Skeletal Class III Malocclusion

• General Approach:

  • In skeletal Class III malocclusion, the extraction pattern is reversed to facilitate the surgical correction, often involving maxillary advancement or mandibular setback.

• Extraction Recommendations:

  • Upper First Premolar Extraction: Extracting the upper first premolars is done to:
    • Correct the proclination of the upper anterior teeth, which is essential for achieving proper alignment and aesthetics.
  • Lower Second Premolar Extraction: If additional space is needed in the lower arch, the extraction of lower second premolars is recommended. This helps:
    • Prevent over-retraction of the lower anterior teeth, maintaining their position while allowing for necessary adjustments in the arch.