COMPARATIVE RADIOLOGICAL STUDY OF BONE DENSITY AND THICKNESS BETWEEN OPEN AND CLOSED REDUCTION OF COMMINUTED MANDIBULAR BONE FRACTURE

Lutf  Mohammed Al-Rahbi; Osama Ali Zayed; Ahmed Abdulah Al-Ashwal; Hassan Abdulwahab Al-Shamahy

doi:10.22270/ujpr.v10i5.1432

Lutf Mohammed Al-Rahbi Yemen Medical Specialist Council, Ministry of Health and population, Republic of Yemen. Department of Oral and Maxillo-Facial Surgery, Faculty of Dentistry, Sana’a University, Republic of Yemen.
Osama Ali Zayed Yemen Medical Specialist Council, Ministry of Health and population, Republic of Yemen.
Ahmed Abdulah Al-Ashwal Yemen Medical Specialist Council, Ministry of Health and population, Republic of Yemen. Department of Oral and Maxillo-Facial Surgery, Faculty of Dentistry, Sana’a University, Republic of Yemen.
Hassan Abdulwahab Al-Shamahy Department of Basic Sciences, Faculty of Dentistry, Sana’a University, Republic of Yemen. Medical Microbiology and Clinical Immunology Department, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Sana’a University, Republic of Yemen.

10.22270/ujpr.v10i5.1432

Keywords:

bone density, bone thickness, comparative radiological study, gunshot injury, intermaxillary fixation, mandibular bone fracture, open reduction internal fixation

Abstract

Background and Objectives: Mandibular fractures, often caused by trauma, can lead to significant functional and aesthetic impairments, including difficulty chewing and speaking, and facial deformities, especially when comminuted. This study compares bone density and thickness in patients with comminuted mandibular fractures resulting from gunshot wounds, using advanced radiological methods to determine treatment efficacy and inform clinical decisions.

Subjects and Methods: This retrospective study compared the treatment of comminuted mandibular fractures resulting from gunshot wounds at Sana'a Military Hospital. The study included patients who underwent open or closed reduction, and demographic data, injury characteristics, and post-treatment examinations were collected. Bone density and thickness were measured using cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) or CT scans, and statistical analysis was performed to compare the two groups.

Results: The study included five patients in each group who underwent intermaxillary fixation (IMF) and open reduction internal fixation (ORIF). The age distribution of patients was heterogeneous, with 30% between 22 and 24 years old, 20% between 25 and 27 years old, 30% between 28 and 30 years old, and 20% over 30 years old. Malunion was the most common complication, followed by bone loss in 30% of patients. No significant differences in bone density and thickness were observed between the IMF and ORIF groups at the site of injury.

Conclusion: Ultimately, a patient's previous bone density is the determining factor in determining the appropriate treatment for a jaw fracture and is not a criterion for comparison between IMF and ORIF. Although both treatments have risks and benefits, the success of the outcome depends on the quality of the underlying bone to ensure stable healing.