Management of zygomatico maxillary complex fractures

Abhishek Singh Payak; Preeti Bhadouria; Alisha Singh; Gopakumar Nair; Rajbir Kaur Randhawa; Sachin Thakur; Ramanpal Singh Makkad

doi:10.6026/97320630019120

Management of zygomatico maxillary complex fractures

Bioinformation. 2023 Jan 31;19(1):120-125. doi: 10.6026/97320630019120. eCollection 2023.

Authors

Abhishek Singh Payak¹, Preeti Bhadouria², Alisha Singh³, Gopakumar Nair⁴, Rajbir Kaur Randhawa⁵, Sachin Thakur⁶, Ramanpal Singh Makkad⁷

Affiliations

¹ Department of Dentistry, MGM Medical College, Indore, Madhya Pradesh, India.
² Department of Oral Medicine and Radiology, MPCD and RC, Gwalior, Madhya Pradesh, India.
³ Department of Dentistry, SRVRS Medical College, Shivpuri, Madhya Pradesh, India.
⁴ Department of Oral Medicine and Radiology, KD Dental College, Mathura, Uttar Pradesh, India.
⁵ Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Ahemdabad Dental College and Hospital, Bhadej, Ahemdabad, Gujarat, India.
⁶ Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Modern Dental College and Research Centre, Indore, Madhya Pradesh, India.
⁷ Department of Oral Medicine and Radiology, New Horizon Dental College and Research Institute, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh, India.

Abstract

Zygomatic bone fractures should be effectively diagnosed and treated because they affect how the face is shaped for both aesthetically and functional reasons. It is possible to compare different surgical techniques and their comorbidities objectively through using outcome quantitative assessments, which call for a treatment programme and long-term follow-up. The purpose of this study was to compare the outcomes of two procedures and the effectiveness of the zygomatic bone following open reduction internal fixation (ORIF) employing two-point fixation and ORIF employing three-point fixation. Two groups of twenty patients each were randomly assigned to. Twenty patients in Group A had ORIF treatment using two-point miniplate fixation technique, and twenty patients in Group B received three-point miniplate fixation treatment. Differences between the two categories were ascertained after they had been evaluated in terms of their advantages and disadvantages. We discovered that the two-point fixation group had the fewest facial complications and neurological side effects. At 1 month follow up, Group B's average radiological evaluation score was 2.47± 0.30, and then at 6 months follow up, it was found out to be 1.87±0.47. A significant statistical distinction between the average radiological evaluations was observed in study participants of Group A at follow up done after one month and six months of procedure. Student's paired t- statistical test was utilized from this statistical analysis. (t = 6.54, P < 0.01). On carrying out follow up after one month of surgery, average neurological assessment score in study participants of group A was found out to be 0.22± 0.42, and then at 6 months follow up, it was 0.61±0.63. The average neurological evaluation score in study participants of Group A on carrying out follow up after one month of surgical procedure and and after six months of surgical procedure months showed a significant statistical distinction when utilizing Student's paired t- statistical test (t = 2.51, P = 0.021).It was determined that the best available rehabilitation for the treatment of zygomaticomaxillary complex fractures is open reduction and internal fixation employing two-point fixation by miniplates.

Keywords: Three-point fixation; Two-point fixation; Zygomatic fracture; internal fixation; open reduction.