maxillofacial trauma in geriatric population : choice of implant in mandibular fractures
Size: 148.18 KB
Language: en
Added: Sep 17, 2025
Slides: 27 pages
Slide Content
Maxillofacial Trauma in the Geriatric Population Focus: Choice of Implant in Geriatric Mandibular Fractures Prepared using multicenter studies and Fonseca 4th Edition
Introduction Challenges: anatomical changes, comorbidities, delayed healing. Increasing incidence with aging population. Reference: Brucoli et al., 2020【22】
Definition Geriatric facial trauma: fractures in patients ≥70 years. Mandibular fractures common, especially in atrophic jaws. Reference: Fonseca, 2013【25】
Etiology & Prevalence Falls are leading cause (86.9% in >75 yrs). Other: MVAs, assaults, but much less frequent. Reference: Shumate et al., 2018【23】; Liu et al., 2019【24】
Epidemiology Mean age ~79.3 yrs (range 70–100). More females than males affected. Reference: Brucoli et al., 2020【22】
Common Fracture Sites MZO fractures most common. Mandibular fractures frequent, esp. in atrophic edentulous jaws. Reference: Brucoli et al., 2020【22】
Concomitant Injuries Orthopedic, intracranial, thoracic, ocular. Significant impact on treatment timing. Reference: Brucoli et al., 2020【22】
Clinical Features Pain, mobility, ecchymosis (extraoral & intraoral). Difficulty in mastication. Reference: Fonseca, 2013【25】
Diagnostic Imaging OPG, CT, 3D reconstruction are gold standard. Essential for planning implant placement. Reference: Fonseca, 2013【25】
General Considerations Frailty, comorbidities, anesthesia risk. Multidisciplinary care essential. Reference: Brucoli et al., 2020【22】
External Fixation Temporary stabilization in selected cases. High complication rate (malunion, nonunion). Reference: Fonseca, 2013【25】
Atrophic Mandible Challenges Loss of bone height (≤7mm). High fracture risk even with minor trauma. Reference: Fonseca, 2013【25】
Surgical Approaches Transcutaneous: easier visualization. Submandibular, transoral: possible but challenging. Reference: Fonseca, 2013【25】
Biomechanics Load-sharing plates insufficient in atrophic mandible. Need for load-bearing fixation. Reference: Fonseca, 2013【25】
Implant Choice: General Principles Use load-bearing fixation. 2.4 mm locking reconstruction plate = gold standard. Reference: Fonseca, 2013【25】
2.4 mm Locking Plate Angle-to-angle span recommended. ≥3 screws each side of fracture. Reference: Fonseca, 2013【25】
Alternatives: 2.0 Locking System For non-atrophic edentulous mandibles (>20 mm height). Reference: Fonseca, 2013【25】
Templating & Bending Templates used to pre-shape plate. Perfect adaptation not always needed with locking plates. Reference: Fonseca, 2013【25】
Pitfalls Avoid small plates → risk of fracture & displacement. Smaller the jaw, larger the plate. Reference: Fonseca, 2013【25】
Bone Grafting Autogenous grafts (iliac crest/tibia). Bone marrow aspirate, BMP may help. Reference: Fonseca, 2013【25】
Post-operative Care Diet: liquid/semi-liquid as tolerated. Oral hygiene: chlorhexidine rinses, follow-up imaging. Reference: Fonseca, 2013【25】
Complications Malunion, nonunion, infection. Higher risk due to comorbidities & poor bone quality. Reference: Brucoli et al., 2020【22】
Multicenter Outcomes Half of patients had surgery delayed >72 hrs. Delay linked to concomitant injuries. Reference: Brucoli et al., 2020【22】
Take Home Message Elderly need individualized management. 2.4 mm locking reconstruction plate = standard. Balance function, comorbidities, quality of life. Reference: Brucoli et al., 2020【22】; Shumate et al., 2018【23】; Liu et al., 2019【24】; Fonseca, 2013【25】