Locking Miniplate Osteosynthesis of Anterior Mandibular Fractures-Quo Vadis?

PURPOSE: This study compared the clinical stability and efficacy of locking miniplates with those of standard miniplates in the osteosynthesis of anterior mandibular fractures using bite force recordings and other clinical parameters. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A prospective randomized double-blinded clinical trial was carried out in patients from various hospitals of Hassan (India). Patients were randomly divided into 2 groups of locking (test) and standard (control) miniplate osteosynthesis. Bite force measurements were performed preoperatively and postoperatively at weekly intervals for 6 weeks using a bite force recorder. As a secondary outcome, patients also were assessed for other clinical parameters that might interfere with successful osteosynthesis at the fracture site. Appropriate statistical testing for intra- and intergroup measurements was carried out. RESULTS: Forty-eight men 28 ± 12.3 years old met the inclusion criteria (24 patients in each group). A statistically significant difference (P < .05) was found in the incisor bite force between the 2 groups, with values in the locking group exceeding those in the standard group at postoperative weeks 2 and 5. Duration of surgery was shorter in the locking group (P = .015). No relevant difference was found for the other clinical parameters. CONCLUSIONS: Bite force statistically increased at progressive follow-up visits compared with the preoperative recording in the locking group. Bite force recordings of patients treated with locking plates were higher and statistically relevant compared with those of patients treated with standard miniplates at the incisor region at postoperative weeks 2 and 5. The clinical outcomes of the 2 miniplate systems in the present study were similar; however, the locking miniplates required a relatively shorter operating time, produced less trauma to the periosteum and soft tissues with less hardware, and can be used as a "1-plate-for-all" system.

"Ride-on" technique and other simple and logical solutions to counter most common complications of silicone implants in augmentation rhinoplasty.

UNLABELLED: Augmentation rhinoplasty can be carried out using a wide range of materials including autologous bone and/or cartilage as well as alloplasts. Use of biologic bone and cartilage grafts results in lower infection rates, but they are associated with long-term resorption and donor-site morbidity. Alloplastic materials, in particular silicone, have been associated in literature with extrusion, necrosis of the tip, mobility and deviation or displacement of the implant, immobile nasal tip and infection. However, they have the advantages of being readily available and easy to reshape with no requirement for harvesting autografts. AIM: To overcome these problems associated with silicone implants for which the authors have devised a novel technique, the "rideon technique". MATERIALS AND METHODS: The present study was carried out on 11 patients over a period of 4 years. The authors have devised a simple technique to fix the silicone implant and retain it in place. Restricting the implant to only dorsum avoided common complications related to the silicone implant. RESULTS: The authors have used this technique in 11 patients with encouraging results. Follow-up ranged from 12 months to 36 months during which patients were assessed for implant mobility, implant extrusion and tip necrosis. There was no incidence of above mentioned complications in these patients. CONCLUSION: The "rideon technique" provides excellent stability to silicone implants and restricting the implant only to dorsum not only eliminates chances of tip necrosis and thus implant extrusion but also maintains natural shape, feel and mobility of the tip.