Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Learning Objectives: After studying this article, the participant should be able
to: 1. Review the incidence and etiology of mandible fractures. 2. Discuss
indications and techniques for closed and open treatment of mandible fractures.
3. Review complications of mandible fractures.
Background: Mandible fractures are among the most common types of facial
fractures treated by plastic surgeons. They must be managed carefully to maintain the function of the mandible, reestablish proper occlusion, and minimize
secondary complications.
Methods: Current methods of management include combinations of soft diet,
intermaxillary fixation, open reduction with plate fixation, and, rarely, external
fixation.
Results: Decision-making depends on the age of the patient, type of fracture
identified, and concomitant medical conditions or injuries.
Conclusion: The authors review the diagnosis and current trends in management of mandible fractures. (Plast. Reconstr. Surg. 117: 48e, 2006.)
ANATOMY
48e
www.plasreconsurg.org
INCIDENCE
A recent review of the pattern of mandibular
fracture presentation at an urban trauma center
found that mandible fractures overwhelmingly
occur in males and are most often caused by interpersonal altercations.2 More than one-third of
fractures occur in the 25- to 34-year-old age group,
and 55 percent of cases involve illicit drug use.3
The mandible is the site of injury in approximately
40 percent of pediatric facial trauma cases, which
are most commonly a result of motor vehicle
accidents.4,5 Fracture location by site includes condylar (36 percent), body (21 percent), angle (20
percent), symphysis (14 percent), alveolar ridge
(3 percent), ramus (3 percent), and coronoid fractures (2 percent) (Fig. 1). Patients with mandible
fractures often have other serious injuries that
warrant additional attention, including cervical
spine injuries or other facial fractures.
DIAGNOSIS
The mechanism of injury can provide valuable
information in the examination and treatment of
patients with mandibular trauma. Interpersonal
altercations tend to result in a higher incidence of
angle fractures, whereas motor vehicle accidents
are associated with parasymphyseal fractures. Pediatric patients with jaw pain after a fall need to be
evaluated carefully for condylar fractures, which
may be bilateral.
Past medical history should be assessed, because seizure disorders, alcohol abuse, temporomandibular joint problems, and nutritional or
metabolic derangements can influence treatment
and outcomes. It is important to have an idea of
the preinjury dental occlusion, because it will be
abnormal in many patients. Dental impressions, if
present, can be extremely helpful and should be
requested from the patients dentist.
A complete head and neck examination is indicated in the evaluation of the patient with sus-
Fig. 1. Regions of the mandible and the correlating percentage of fractures occurring in each region. Reprinted with
permission from Dingman, R. O., and Natvig, P. Surgery of Facial Fractures.
49e
RADIOLOGY
An algorithm is presented in Figure 2 that may
guide the clinician in radiographic evaluation of
the patient with a suspected mandibular fracture.
Plain radiographs, such as the low Townes view
and a Panorex, are usually the first radiographs
ordered (Figs. 3 and 4). A low Townes view will
clearly show the condylar processes of the mandible and is helpful in identifying fractures in the
sagittal plane. In one study, the Panorex was
shown to diagnose 92 percent of mandible
fractures.7 It is also useful as a postreduction radiograph. A maxillofacial computed tomography
scan may be useful if the patient has multiple
midface injuries, is in a cervical collar, or cannot
otherwise undergo panoramic radiography. The
three-dimensional reconstructions may be useful
in planning treatment or if the axial cuts appear
confusing (Figs. 5 and 6).
Wilson et al.8 found that a helical computed
tomography scan was 100 percent sensitive in diTable 1. Physical Examination Findings
Malocclusion
Buccal or lingual ecchymosis
Mucosal lacerations indicating an open fracture
Palpable bony step-offs
Pain
Numbness
Trismus
Edema
Excess salivation
Tongue lacerations
50e
CLASSIFICATION OF FRACTURES
Mandibular fractures are most often described
by anatomic location (Fig. 1) in the mandible and
whether they are displaced, comminuted, or
greensticked. They may also be classified as either favorable or unfavorable, based on location
and configuration. Favorable fractures are those
that are nondisplaced by muscular pull and include most ramus fractures. Angle fractures that
extend posteriorly and downward are horizontally
unfavorable and tend to be displaced by the muscles of mastication. Symphyseal and parasymphyseal fractures tend to be vertically unfavorable and
are displaced by the downward pull of the suprahyoid musculature. High condylar fractures are
considered unfavorable and are often displaced
medially by the lateral pterygoid muscle.
MANAGEMENT OF MANDIBULAR
FRACTURES
An algorithm for treatment of mandible fractures is presented in Figure 7.
Timing
Definitive repair of a mandibular fracture is
not a surgical emergency, and treatment is often
delayed in the multiply injured patient. A recent
study comparing patients undergoing repair
within 3 days of injury to those repaired after 3
days found no increase in complication rates.15 We
currently attempt to manage these patients within
24 to 36 hours of injury, to minimize patient discomfort and expedite hospital discharge, as well as
to avoid maximal soft-tissue edema and fibrinous
deposition within the fracture.
In cases of treatment delay, we occasionally use
a Barton bandage to obtain dental occlusion and
decrease pain.16 This bandage is formed by wrapping a - to 12-inch gauze bandage underneath
the jaw and then alternating around the top of the
head and back of the neck. The gauze is then
secured with an elastic wrap. The bandage should
Fig. 3. A low Townes view in a postoperative patient after plating of left angle fracture and right parasymphyseal fracture.
Antibiotics
Mandibular fractures are essentially open fractures that should be considered contaminated,
because of the oral flora, and many surgeons utilize prophylactic antibiotics. Controversial indications for perioperative antibiotics include heavily
contaminated fractures, severely comminuted
fractures, severely lacerated soft tissues, difficult
fractures requiring a long operative time, and delayed fracture treatment.17 However, a recent randomized prospective study showed no difference
in rates of wound infection in patients with an
uncomplicated mandible fracture who received
postoperative antibiotics versus those who received placebo.18 Currently, we give either penicillin with metronidazole or clindamycin alone to
patients with complicated mandible and/or multiple facial fractures. Prophylaxis should also be
considered in uncomplicated fractures occurring
in patients with valvular heart disease or prosthetic
implants.
51e
52e
Fig. 7. Treatment algorithm. MMF, mandibulomaxillary fixation; ORIF, open reduction and internal fixation.
fractures. Specific indications for opening of condyle fractures are reviewed below.
Adequate exposure is a key component of
proper open reduction of mandible fractures. An
intraoral buccal sulcus incision is commonly used
for parasymphyseal and body fractures, with care
taken to avoid injury to the mental nerve and its
branches. Either an external or an intraoral approach can be used for access to angle and ramus
fractures. The external approach can provide better visualization and access to the inferior border,
but the marginal mandibular nerve may be placed
at risk. Most plating companies offer specialized
cheek retractors that aid in the intraoral approach
to the posterior mandible (Fig. 8). The fracture
site should be adequately debrided of all fibrin
and hematoma to allow tight approximation of the
bone edges.
Reduction can often be achieved with application of intermaxillary fixation. Additional reduction may be achieved with the use of a lower
border wiring technique26,27 or bone pliers to approximate two fracture fragments. This lower border wire can then be removed once a plate has
been placed across the fracture line. There continues to be debate over whether to maintain intermaxillary fixation after open reduction and internal fixation of the mandible. Indications for use
of intermaxillary fixation after open reduction
53e
54e
55e
56e
asymmetries in condylar support are of little performance for generating occlusal force, since
there is a lack of correlation between the amount
of condylar displacement and maximal bite forces.
Ellis et al.42 reviewed their complications in
178 patients with unilateral condylar fractures (85
were treated with closed reduction and 93 were
treated with open reduction). At 6 weeks postoperatively, 17.2 percent of the open group had facial nerve weakness; all cases were resolved by 6
months. Hypertrophic or wide scars were noted in
7.5 percent of the open treatment group. They
used a transparotid, retromandibular approach to
the condyle and only treated the condyle fracture
after other mandible fractures, if present, were
exposed and fixated. Three cases of parotid fistula
occurred in the open treatment group. It should
be noted that all of the open procedures were
performed by a single surgeon, which added an
average of 40 minutes to the operating room time
when compared with the closed treatment group.
Brandt and Haug35 reviewed some of the options for internal fixation of condylar fractures.
Their conclusions are that the literature supports
that the adaptation plate is the least favorable and
the minidynamic compression plate is the most
favorable of the available options for internal fixation of condylar fractures.
Assael43 reviewed many of the same articles as
Brandt and Haug35 did and offered alternative
conclusions from the evidence. Assael43 cites MacLennans44 series of 180 patients, of whom 61 percent had a radiographic deformity and only 6 percent had a clinical deformity after closed
treatment for condylar fractures. He argues that
complications should be measured by looking at
whether the patient has pain, decreased function,
and a bad clinical appearance, rather than at radiographic criteria. It should be noted that patients with condylar fractures treated with closed
reduction rarely complain of a posttraumatic deformity. The avoidance of visible scars with closed
treatment should also be considered, since patients generally find these scars to be unfavorable.
Assael43 minimizes the difference that Ellis and
Throckmorton38 found in facial symmetry and ramus height in the closed and open treatment
groups, because clinical examination was not used
as an outcome indicator. In addition, the decrease
in ramus height in the closed group was 2 to 5 mm,
and this was not shown to be clinically significant.
Silvennoinen et al.45 noted a 13 percent rate of
malocclusion in their series of patients with condylar fractures treated by closed treatment. They
concluded that a subset of patients exist who have
57e
COMPLICATIONS
In the literature, one may find mandible complication rates ranging from 7 to 29 percent.56,57
The complication rate has been correlated to the
severity of the fracture. Lois et al.58 found no difference in the complication rate of fractures
treated by mandibulomaxillary fixation versus
open reduction and internal fixation (4.3 percent
and 5.45 percent, respectively). Their total complication rate was 9.5 percent. They concluded
that in fractures with displacement in the range of
2 to 4 mm, there is no difference between mandibulomaxillary fixation and open reduction/internal fixation.
Collins et al.59 looked retrospectively at their
experience with different types of mandible fractures and found that complication rates were as
follows: angle fractures, 9.4 percent; body frac-
58e
CONCLUSIONS
Fractures of the mandible are frequently encountered by the plastic surgeon. Investigation
into the mechanism of trauma, along with careful
physical examination, will often identify the loca-
REFERENCES
1. Gray, H. Anatomy of the Human Body, www.bartleby.com Ed.
New York: Bartleby.com, 2000. P. 1247.
2. Lamphier, J., Ziccardi, V., Ruvo, A., et al. Complications of
mandibular fractures in urban teaching center. J. Oral Maxillofac. Surg. 61: 745, 2003.
3. Ogundare, B. O., Bonnick, A., and Bayley, N. Pattern of
mandibular fractures in an urban major trauma center.
J. Oral Maxillofac. Surg. 61: 713, 2003.
4. Schweinfurth, J. M., and Koltai, P. J. Pediatric mandibular
fractures. Facial Plast. Surg. 14: 31, 1998.
5. Sherick, D. G., Buchman, S. R., and Patel, P. P. Pediatric
facial fractures: A demographic analysis outside an urban
environment. Ann. Plast. Surg. 38: 578, 1997.
6. Hung, Y. C., Montazem, A., and Costello, M. A. The correlation between mandible fractures and loss of consciousness.
J. Oral Maxillofac. Surg. 62: 938, 2004.
7. Chayra, G. A., Meador, L. R., and Laskin, D. M. Comparison
of panoramic and standard radiographs in the diagnosis of
mandibular fractures. J. Oral Maxillofac. Surg. 44: 677, 1986.
8. Wilson, I. F., Lokeh, A., Benjamin, C. I., et al. Prospective
comparison of panoramic tomography (zonography) and
helical computed tomography in the diagnosis and operative
management of mandibular fractures. Plast. Reconstr. Surg.
107: 1369, 2001.
9. Bayles, S. W., Abramson, P. J., McMahon, S. J., et al. Mandibular fracture and associated cervical spine fracture, a rare
and predictable injury: Protocol for cervical spine evaluation
and review of 1382 cases. Arch. Otolaryngol. Head Neck Surg.
123: 1304, 1997.
10. Andrew, C. T., Gallucci, J. G., Brown, A. S., et al. Is routine
cervical spine radiographic evaluation indicated in patients
with mandibular fractures? Am. Surg. 58: 369, 1992.
11. Haug, R. H., Wible, R. T., Likavec, M. J., et al. Cervical spine
fractures and maxillofacial trauma. J. Oral Maxillofac. Surg.
49: 725, 1991.
12. Ardekian, L., Gaspar, R., Peled, M., et al. Incidence and type
of cervical spine injuries associated with mandibular fractures. J. Craniomaxillofac. Trauma 3: 18, 1997.
13. Hemmings, K. W. Fracture of the cervical spine complicating
bilateral fractures of the mandible: A case report. Br. J. Oral
Maxillofac. Surg. 23: 279, 1985.
14. Donoff, R. B., and Roser, S. M. Management of condylar
fractures in patients with cervical spine injury: Report of
cases. J. Oral Surg. 31: 130, 1973.
15. Biller, J. A., Pletcher, S. D., Goldberg, A. N., et al. Complications and the time to repair of mandible fractures. Laryngoscope 115: 769, 2005.
16. Green, B. E., Jr. Use of modified head halter for a Barton
bandage. Plast. Reconstr. Surg. 49: 466, 1972.
59e
38.
39.
40.
41.
42.
43.
44.
45.
46.
47.
48.
49.
60e
50.
51.
52.
53.
54.
55.
56.
57.
58.
59.
60.
61.
62.