CLINICAL AND CONE-BEAM COMPUTED TOMOGRAPHY CHARACTERISTICS OF PATIENTS WITH MANDIBULAR FRACTURES AT NATIONAL HOSPITAL OF ODONTOLOGY AND MAXILLOFACIAL SURGERY, HANOI, 2024–2026
Main Article Content
Abstract
Objectives: To describe the clinical and cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) characteristics of patients with mandibular fractures treated at the National Hospital of Odontology and Maxillofacial Surgery, Hanoi, from 2024 to 2026.
Subjects and methods: A retrospective cross-sectional study was conducted on 251 patients with mandibular fractures who underwent surgical treatment at the Department of Maxillofacial Surgery, National Hospital of Odontology and Maxillofacial Surgery, Hanoi, between June 2024 and June 2026. Clinical findings and CBCT characteristics were collected from medical records and preoperative imaging data.
Results: The mean age of patients was 28.3 ± 13.5 years, and males accounted for 71.71% of cases. Traffic accidents were the leading cause of mandibular fractures (78.09%). The most common clinical manifestations were pain at the fracture site (94.82%), malocclusion (86.85%), and limited mouth opening (82.07%). On CBCT imaging, fractures of the symphysis region were the most frequent (59.76%), followed by condylar fractures (52.59%). Multiple fracture sites were observed in most patients. Common associated maxillofacial injuries included maxillary and zygomatic arch fractures.
Conclusions: Mandibular fractures mainly occurred in young male patients and were predominantly caused by traffic accidents. CBCT played an important role in evaluating fracture characteristics and supporting treatment planning.
Article Details
Keywords
mandibular fracture, cone-beam computed tomography, maxillofacial trauma, condylar fracture, symphysis fracture
References
2. Trương Mạnh Dũng, Trần Văn Trường. Tình hình chấn thương hàm mặt điều trị tại Viện Răng Hàm Mặt Hà Nội trong 10 năm. Tạp chí Y học Thực hành. 2000;389:45-49.
3. Ellis E III, Moos KF, El-Attar A. Ten years of mandibular fractures: an analysis of 2,137 cases. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol. 1985;59(2):120-129. DOI: 10.1016/0030-4220(85)90002-7.
4. Gutta R, Tracy K, Johnson C, James LE, Krishnan DG, Marciani RD. Outcomes of mandible fracture treatment at an academic tertiary hospital: a 5-year analysis. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2014;72(3):550-558. DOI: 10.1016/j.joms.2013.09.005.
5. Hsieh TY, Funamura JL, Dedhia R, Durbin-Johnson B, Dunbar C, Tollefson TT. Risk factors associated with complications after treatment of mandible fractures. JAMA Facial Plast Surg. 2019;21(3):213-220. DOI: 10.1001/jamafacial.2018.1800.
6. Kim MY, Kim CH, Han SJ, Lee JH. A comparison of three treatment methods for fractures of the mandibular angle. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2016;45(7):878-883. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijom.2016.02.001.
7. Joshi UM, Ramdurg S, Saikar S, Patil S, Shah K. Brain injuries and facial fractures: a prospective study of incidence of head injury associated with maxillofacial trauma. J Maxillofac Oral Surg. 2018;17(4):531-537. DOI: 10.1007/s12663-017-1064-3.
8. Mukherjee S, Abhinav K, Revington P. A review of cervical spine injury associated with maxillofacial trauma at a UK tertiary referral centre. Ann R Coll Surg Engl. 2015;97(1):66-72. DOI: 10.1308/003588414X14055925058772.
9. Lee KH. Epidemiology of mandibular fractures in a tertiary trauma centre. Emerg Med J. 2008;25(9):565-568. DOI: 10.1136/emj.2007.052142.
10. Brasileiro BF, Passeri LA. Epidemiological analysis of maxillofacial fractures in Brazil: a 5-year prospective study. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod. 2006;102(1):28-34. DOI: 10.1016/j.tripleo.2005.07.023.