World Journal of Dentistry

Register      Login

VOLUME 13 , ISSUE S2 ( Supplementary Issue 2, 2022 ) > List of Articles


Efficiency of 2 mm Titanium Lambda Plate for Open Reduction and Internal Fixation of Subcondylar Fractures: A Prospective Study

Abhinandan Patel, G Girish, G Nikhila, R Akarsh, Preethi Bhat, Ahamed Irfan Khazilane

Keywords : Lambda plate, Mouth opening, Occlusal bite forces, Occlusion, Plate adaptability, Subcondylar fractures

Citation Information : Patel A, Girish G, Nikhila G, Akarsh R, Bhat P, Khazilane AI. Efficiency of 2 mm Titanium Lambda Plate for Open Reduction and Internal Fixation of Subcondylar Fractures: A Prospective Study. World J Dent 2022; 13 (S2):S154-S160.

DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10015-2139

License: CC BY-NC 4.0

Published Online: 31-12-2022

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2022; The Author(s).


Aim: To evaluate the clinical efficiency of a 2 mm lambda plate for open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) of condylar fractures in terms of surgical time, plate adaptability, mouth opening, restoration of occlusion, and ramus height. Materials and methods: A prospective study was conducted, including 16 patients presenting with subcondylar fractures. Under general anesthesia, a surgical approach was employed, and fracture fixation was accomplished using the titanium (Ti) lambda plate of 2 mm thickness and having seven holes. Patients were postoperatively (post-op) followed up clinically and radiologically at 1 week and 1 and 3 months. Results: Plate adaptability was good. The mean surgical time was 110.5 minutes. All patients showed a statistically significant increase in mouth opening following surgery. Around 93.8% (15 patients) had occlusion, which was deranged preoperatively (pre-op). This improved significantly in the post-op period. Pre-op, seven patients (43.75%) had a deviation on the opening of the mouth, and after surgery, it significantly decreased. The variation in mean bite force at central incisor (CI), right premolar, left premolar, and right and left molar between various time intervals was statistically significant p< 0.001. Conclusion: We conclude that the use of a 2 mm seven-hole lambda plate for fractures in the subcondylar region presents a good option to achieve stable osteosynthesis with less surgical time and complications. Clinical significance: There is limited data regarding surgical management of subcondylar fractures, owing to the challenge in accessing the region and the complexity of reduction of the displaced fragments. Fixation techniques also add to the issue. Exploration of surgical management of subcondylar fractures and data on in vivo evaluation of lambda plate design will enhance the prospects and knowledge for the development and implementation of the treatment protocol.

PDF Share
  1. Cortelazzi R, Altacera M, Turco M, et al. Development and clinical evaluation of matrixMANDIBLE subcondylar plates system (synthes). Craniomaxillofac Trauma Reconstr 2015;8(2):94–99. DOI: 10.1055/s-0034-1395382
  2. Ellis E 3rd, Throckmorton GS. Bite forces after open or closed treatment of mandibular condylar process fractures. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2001;59(4):389–395. DOI: 10.1053/joms.2001.21873
  3. Anirudhan A, Khalam SA, Zachariah RK. Evaluation of clinical use of indigenously developed delta plate in management of subcondylar fracture. Clin Pract 2013;3(2):e28. DOI: 10.4081/cp.2013.e28
  4. Choi KY, Yang JD, Chung HY, et al. Current concepts in the mandibular condyle fracture management part II: open reduction versus closed reduction. Arch Plast Surg 2012;39(4):301–308. DOI: 10.5999/aps.2012.39.4.301
  5. Spinzia A, Patrone R, Belli E, et al. Open reduction and internal fixation of extracapsular mandibular condyle fractures: a long-term clinical and radiological follow-up of 25 patients. BMC Surg 2014;14:68. DOI: 10.1186/1471-2482-14-68
  6. Meyer C, Kahn JL, Boutemi P, et al. Photoelastic analysis of bone deformation in the region of the mandibular condyle during mastication. J Craniomaxillofac Surg 2002;30(3):160–169. DOI: 10.1054/jcms.2002.0297
  7. Tominaga K, Habu M, Khanal A, et al. Biomechanical evaluation of different types of rigid internal fixation techniques for subcondylar fractures. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2006;64(10):1510–1516. DOI: 10.1016/j.joms.2006.03.038
  8. Parascandolo S, Spinzia A, Parascandolo S, et al. Two load sharing plates fixation in mandibular condylar fractures: biomechanical basis. J Craniomaxillofac Surg 2010;38(5):385–390. DOI: 10.1016/j.jcms.2009.10.014
  9. Christopoulos P, Stathopoulos P, Alexandridis C, et al. Comparative biomechanical evaluation of mono-cortical osteosynthesis systems for condylar fractures using photoelastic stress analysis. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2012;50(7):636–641. DOI: 10.1016/j.bjoms.2011.12.001
  10. Leiser Y, Peled M, Braun R, et al. Treatment of low subcondylar fractures–a 5-year retrospective study. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2013;42(6):716–720. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijom.2013.03.006
  11. Qian Y, Wang W, Xu B, et al. Transmasseteric anterior parotid approach for treatment of mandibular subcondylar fractures. J Craniofac Surg 2018;29(7):e690–e693. DOI: 10.1097/SCS.0000000000004922
  12. Kolk A, Neff A. Long-term results of ORIF of condylar head fractures of the mandible: a prospective 5-year follow-up study of small-fragment positional-screw osteosynthesis (SFPSO). J Craniomaxillofac Surg 2015;43(4):452–461. DOI: 10.1016/j.jcms.2015.02.004
  13. Hammer B, Schier P, Prein J. Osteosynthesis of condylar neck fractures: a review of 30 patients. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg 1997;35(4):288–291. DOI: 10.1016/s0266-4356(97)90050-4
  14. Ellis E 3rd, Dean J. Rigid fixation of mandibular condyle fractures. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol 1993;76(1):6–15. DOI: 10.1016/0030-4220(93)90285-c
  15. Choi BH, Yi CK, Yoo JH. Clinical evaluation of 3 types of plate osteosynthesis for fixation of condylar neck fractures. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2001;59(7):734–737. DOI: 10.1053/joms.2001.24283
  16. Smolka W, Liokatis P, Cornelius CP. Open reduction and internal fixation of unilateral mandibular condylar base and neck fractures using a lambda plate: selection criteria for application. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2020;78(6):979–985. DOI: 10.1016/j.joms.2020.01.035
  17. Kuang SJ, He YQ, Zheng YH, et al. Open reduction and internal fixation of mandibular condylar fractures. Medicine (Baltimore) 2019;98(37):e16814. DOI: 10.1097/MD.0000000000016814
  18. Sajid MHS, Mehmood S, Latif K, et al. Pattern of presentation of mandibular condylar fractures in relation with known risk factors. Pak Oral Dent J 2016;36(1):13–18. ISSN 1012-8700.
  19. Larsen OD, Nielsen A. Mandibular fractures. I. An analysis of their etiology and location in 286 patients. Scand J Plast Reconstr Surg 1976;10(3):213–218. DOI: 10.3109/02844317609012971
  20. Al-Balbissi AH. Role of gender in road accidents. Traffic Inj Prev 2003;4(1):64–73. DOI: 10.1080/15389580309857
  21. Mahgoub MA, El-Sabbagh AH, El-Latif EAA, et al. Condylar fractures: review of 40 cases. Ann Maxillofac Surg 2018;8(1):19–27. DOI: 10.4103/ams.ams_133_17
  22. Sugiura T, Yamamoto K, Murakami K, et al. A comparative evaluation of osteosynthesis with lag screws, miniplates, or Kirschner wires for mandibular condylar process fractures. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2001;59(10):1161–1168. DOI: 10.1053/joms.2001.26718
  23. El-Mahdy MA, Ezz MK,Shindy MI. Assessment of subcondylar fracture treated using two four-hole straight miniplates versus the synthes® matrixmandible trapezoidal plate: randomized controlled trial. Eur J Mol Clin Med 2020;7(9):692–708. ISSN 2515-8260.
  24. Chen CT, Feng CH, Tsay PK, et al. Functional outcomes following surgical treatment of bilateral mandibular condylar fractures. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2011;40(1):38–44. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijom.2010.09.002
  25. Ishihama K, Iida S, Kimura T, et al. Comparison of surgical and nonsurgical treatment of bilateral condylar fractures based on maximal mouth opening. Cranio 2007;25(1):16–22. DOI: 10.1179/crn.2007.004
  26. Widmark G, Bagenholm T, Kahnberg KE, et al. Open reduction of subcondylar fractures. A study of functional rehabilitation. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 1996;25(2):107–111. DOI: 10.1016/s0901-5027(96)80052-x
  27. Singh V, Bhagol A, Goel M, et al. Outcomes of open versus closed treatment of mandibular subcondylar fractures: a prospective randomized study. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2010;68(6):1304–1309. DOI: 10.1016/j.joms.2010.01.001
  28. Brandt MT, Haug RH. Open versus closed reduction of adult mandibular condyle fractures: a review of the literature regarding the evolution of current thoughts on management. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2003;61(11):1324–1332. DOI: 10.1016/s0278-2391(03)00735-3
  29. Sybil D, Gopalkrishnan K. Assessment of masticatory function using bite force measurements in patients treated for mandibular fractures. Craniomaxillofac Trauma Reconstr 2013;6(4):247–250. DOI: 10.1055/s-0033-1356755
  30. Darwich MA, Albogha MH, Abdelmajeed A, et al. Assessment of the biomechanical performance of 5 plating techniques in fixation of mandibular subcondylar fracture using finite element analysis. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2016;74(4):794.e1–794.e8. DOI: 10.1016/j.joms.2015.11.021
PDF Share
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.