The Journal of Contemporary Dental Practice

Register      Login



Volume / Issue

Online First

Related articles

VOLUME 21 , ISSUE 4 ( April, 2020 ) > List of Articles


A Comparative Assessment of the Management of Mandibular Angle Fractures using 3D Plates and 2D Mini Plates

Rohit Singh, Jazib Nazeer, Mohammad A Iqubal, Supriya Singh

Keywords : Mandibular angle, Miniplates, Mouth opening

Citation Information : Singh R, Nazeer J, Iqubal MA, Singh S. A Comparative Assessment of the Management of Mandibular Angle Fractures using 3D Plates and 2D Mini Plates. J Contemp Dent Pract 2020; 21 (4):400-403.

DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10024-2787

License: CC BY-NC 4.0

Published Online: 01-04-2020

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2020; The Author(s).


Aims: The aim of this study was to compare 2D plates with 3D mini plate system in the management of mandibular angle fractures. Materials and methods: The study was conducted on 146 patients with mandibular angle fracture, who were equally divided into two groups of 73. Patients in group I were treated with 3D plating and in group II with 2D plating. In all cases, 2.0 mm titanium miniplates were used. The etiology of fracture, amount of mouth opening, and pain and sensory deficit were recorded. Clinical and radiographic assessment was done at 1, 3, and 6 months. Results: The etiology of mandibular angle fracture is roadside accident (RSA) seen in 110 (75.3%) cases, fall in 24 (16.4%), and assault in 12 (2.6%) cases. There was significant (p < 0.05) mouth opening in group I at 1 month postoperatively (32.4 mm) as compared to group II (27.5 mm), at 3 months in group I (33.6 mm) as compared to group I (30.2 mm), and at 6 months in group I (36.4 mm) as compared to group II (31.6 mm). After 1 month, sensory deficit was present in six patients in group I and 10 patients in group II. After 3 months, group I had no patients and three patients in group II. Right angle fracture was found in 71 patients (group I—36, group II—35). Mandibular right angle fracture in 58 patients (group I—28, group II—30). Conclusion: The authors found that the 3D miniplate system is more useful in the management of cases of mandibular angle fracture as compared to 2D miniplates. Clinical significance: There has been increase in mandibular fractures in the last few years. Appropriate management with 3D miniplates may be useful in providing better treatment outcomes.

  1. Sawatari Y, Marwan H, Alotaibi F, et al. The use of three-dimensional strut plates for the management of mandibular angle fractures: a retrospective analysis of 222 patients. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2016;45(11):1410–1417. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijom.2016.05.023.
  2. Chhabaria G, Halli R. Evaluation of 2.0-mm titanium three dimensional curved angle strut plate in the fixation of mandibular angle fractures- a prospective clinical and radiological analysis. Craniomaxillofac Trauma Reconstr 2014;7(2):119. DOI: 10.1055/s-0034-1371002.
  3. Cillo J, Ellis E. Management of bilateral mandibular angle fractures with combined rigid and nonrigid fixation. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2014;72:106. DOI: 10.1016/j.joms.2013.07.008.
  4. Almoraissi EA, Ellis III E. What method for management of unilateral mandibular angle fractures has the lowest rate of postoperative complications? A systematic review and meta-analysis. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2014;72(11):2197. DOI: 10.1016/j.joms.2014.05. 023.
  5. Afrooz PN, Bykowski MR. The epidemiology of mandibular fractures in the United States, part 1: a review of 13,142 cases from the US National Trauma Data Bank. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2015;73:2361. DOI: 10.1016/j. joms.2015.04.032.
  6. Lee JH. Treatment of mandibular angle fractures. Arch Craniofac Surg 2017;18(2):73–75. DOI: 10.7181/acfs.2017.18.2.73.
  7. Pandey V, Bhutia O, Nagori SA, et al. Management of mandibular angle fractures using a 1.7 mm 3-dimensional strut plate. J Oral Biol Craniofac Res 2016;6(1):36–41. DOI: 10.1016/j.jobcr.2015.11.001.
  8. Budhraja NJ, Shenoi RS, Badjate SJ, et al. Three-dimensional locking plate and conventional miniplates in the treatment of mandibular anterior fractures. Ann Maxillofac Surg 2018;8(1):73–77. DOI: 10.4103/ams.ams_175_17.
  9. Morris C, Bebeau NP. Mandibular fractures: an analysis of the epidemiology and patterns of injury in 4,143 fractures. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2015;73(5):951. DOI: 10.1016/j.joms.2015.01.001.
  10. Wusiman P, Yarbag A, Wurouzi G, et al. Three dimensional versus standard miniplate fixation in management of mandibular fractures: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Craniomaxillofac Surg 2016;44(10):1646–1654. DOI: 10.1016/j.jcms.2016.07.027.
  11. Giri KY, Singh AP, Dandriyal R, et al. Incidence and pattern of mandibular fractures in Rohilkhand region, Uttar Pradesh state, India: a retrospective study. J Oral Biol Craniofac Res 2015;5(3):140–145.
  12. Mittal Y, Varghese KG, Mohan S, et al. A comparative study of 3-dimensional titanium versus 2-dimensional titanium miniplates for open reduction and fixation of mandibular parasymphysis fracture. J Maxillofac Oral Surg 2016;15(1):93–98. DOI: 10.1007/s12663-015-0780-7.
  13. Singh R, Shahi AK, Prajapati VK, et al. Comparative study of 3 dimensional and standard miniplate in management of anterior mandibular fractures. Int J Contemp Med Res 2019;6(8):5–11.
  14. Mishra N, Thakkar N, Kar I, et al. 3-D miniplates versus conventional miniplates in treatment of mandible fractures. J Maxillofac Oral Surg 2017. 1–8.
  15. Barde DH, Mudhol A, Ali FM, et al. Efficacy of 3-dimensional plates over Champys miniplates in mandibular anterior fractures. J Int Oral Health 2014;6(1):20–26.
PDF Share
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.