The Pattern of Maxillofacial Fracture and its Management in the Northern Region of Bangladesh

Maxillofacial Fracture and its Management

Abstract

Background: The purpose of the study was to characterize various trends in the treatment of maxillofacial fractures as well as to ascertain the pattern of oral and maxillofacial trauma. There may be some evidence from this study to support the suggestion of potential preventive actions.

Objective: The cross-sectional, retrospective study was performed with the intention of identifying the pattern and various approaches to treating maxillofacial fractures.

Methods: A tertiary health care center has treated 213 consecutive occurrences of maxillofacial trauma in the last two years. Patient files and radiographic images were reviewed. We examined data regarding age, gender, anatomical location of fracture and available treatments.

Results: There were 213 participants, ranging in age from 2 to 76, with the age group between 21 and 30 having the highest prevalence. There were 5.25 times as many men as women. According to the study’s findings, road traffic accidents (RTAs) accounted for 65.26% (n = 139) of the instances, subsequently followed by falls (n = 40; 18.78%), assaults (n = 17; 8%), sports (n = 11; 5.17%), firearm injuries (n = 2; 0.93%), and industrial trauma (n = 2; 0.93%). Two incidents (0.93%) were linked to other reasons, such as bomb blasts and animal injuries.

A total of 243 fractures were present in 213 patients. Among 213 individuals, 186 had single, isolated fractures, and the rest (n = 27) had multiple fractures. The mandible (62.92%) was the most commonly fractured area. The midface (15.5%), maxilla (4.7%), zygomatic complex (1.9%), nasal bone (1.4%), and nasoethmoidal fractures (0.94%) were the next most common areas. The most frequent location for mandibular fractures was the body (31%), followed by the condylar area (23.48%). Le Fort I was the most frequent fracture among maxillary fractures (40%). Approximately 19% of patients with mandibular fractures underwent open reduction surgery instead of the majority of patients who underwent closed reduction surgery (arch bars with IMF, eyelet wire, and lateral compression plate) (intraosseous and miniplate fixation). While Gillie’s technique (38.46%) was the most popular way of caring for zygomatic complex fractures, the majority of maxillary fractures were treated with plain arch bars.

Conclusion: The results of this research can be used as a model for developing preventative and rehabilitative activities because they illustrate patterns of trauma experienced by communities.

Bangladesh Med Res Counc Bull 2024; 50: 54-59