Aims: The aim of this study was to compare 2D plates with 3D miniplate 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 II (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.
Keywords: Mandibular angle; Miniplates Mouth opening..