Is healing outcome of 2 weeks intermaxillary fixation different from that of 4 to 6 weeks intermaxillary fixation in the treatment of mandibular fractures?
| dc.contributor.author | Adeyemi, M.F. | |
| dc.contributor.author | Adeyemo, W.L. | |
| dc.contributor.author | Ogunlewe, M.O. | |
| dc.contributor.author | Ladeinde, A.L. | |
| dc.date.accessioned | 2019-10-30T08:08:28Z | |
| dc.date.available | 2019-10-30T08:08:28Z | |
| dc.date.issued | 2012-08-01 | |
| dc.description | Staff publications | en_US |
| dc.description.abstract | PURPOSE: This study was undertaken to compare the healing outcome of a short period (2 weeks) of intermaxillary fixation (IMF) with conventional (4-6 weeks) IMF in the management of fractures of the mandibular tooth-bearing area. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This was a randomized controlled study conducted at the Lagos University Teaching Hospital, Lagos, Nigeria, between November 2007 and January 2009. Subjects with minimally displaced mandibular fractures in the tooth-bearing area were randomly allocated into 2 treatment groups: IMF for 2 weeks (study group) or IMF for 4 to 6 weeks (control group). For the purpose of study analysis, the primary predictor variable was the treatment (IMF for 2 weeks vs IMF for 4-6 weeks). Other predictor variables were the age and gender of subjects. The primary healing outcome was considered either satisfactory or unsatisfactory. The following outcome variables that described the healing process were also compared in the 2 groups: healing time, postoperative infection, paresthesia, and maximal interincisal opening. Loss of body weight and oral hygiene status at the end of treatment were compared in the 2 groups. A value of P < .05 was considered significant. RESULTS: Satisfactory healing was observed in all cases in both groups. However, satisfactory healing was observed earlier (5.4 ± 0.9 weeks) in the control group than in patients with the short IMF period (7.2 ± 0.9 weeks) (P < .001). Malocclusion that was amenable to selective grinding was the only complication seen in both groups (n = 2 in study group and n = 1 in control group) (P = .492). Subjects in the control group lost more weight after treatment than those in the study group (P < .001). The recovery of interincisal mouth opening was also better in the study group than in the control group (P < .001). The study group had better oral hygiene than the control group at the end of treatment. CONCLUSIONS: The healing outcome was comparable in both groups. However, the healing time was significantly longer in the group with the short IMF period. The recovery of maximal mouth opening, oral hygiene status, and loss of weight body in the study group were significantly better than those in the control group. This study suggests that a short period (2 weeks) of IMF in the management of minimally displaced mandibular fractures of the tooth-bearing area in young adults is a suitable alternative to the conventional method in terms of the healing outcome. | en_US |
| dc.identifier.citation | Adeyemi MF, Adeyemo WL, Ogunlewe MO, Ladeinde AL. Is healing outcome of 2 weeks intermaxillary fixation different from that of 4 to 6 weeks intermaxillary fixation in the treatment of mandibular fractures? J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2012 Aug;70(8):1896-902. | en_US |
| dc.identifier.uri | https://ir.unilag.edu.ng/handle/123456789/6606 | |
| dc.language.iso | en | en_US |
| dc.publisher | Elsevier | en_US |
| dc.subject | Healing outcome | en_US |
| dc.subject | Intermaxillary fixation | en_US |
| dc.subject | Mandibular fractures | en_US |
| dc.subject | Treatment | en_US |
| dc.subject | Research Subject Categories::ODONTOLOGY | en_US |
| dc.title | Is healing outcome of 2 weeks intermaxillary fixation different from that of 4 to 6 weeks intermaxillary fixation in the treatment of mandibular fractures? | en_US |
| dc.type | Article | en_US |