Sam-Henry Pressling
Cambridge University Trust School of Clinical Medicine, UK
Scientific Tracks Abstracts: J Cancer Sci Ther
The objective of this study was to investigate the clinical effectiveness of titanium (T) plate fixation vs biodegradable (B) plate fixation in patients with maxillofacial fractures. We performed a literature search using Cochrane library, PubMed and Embase, and included all randomised controlled trials comparing titanium vs biodegradable plate fixation in patients with maxillofacial fractures and/or dentofacial deformities from 2000 to present. This search yielded 7 studies (n=1089) which fit the inclusion criteria. These studies evaluated various parameters including bone healing (achieving union), plate/screw removal rate, development of infection and handling properties. Three studies reported no significant difference between the rate of union between titanium and bioresorbable plate fixation (p>0.05), and one paper reported bone healing was slower after bioresorbable fixation compared to titanium (p<0.001). 3 papers report the plate removal rate due to complications such as inflammation was significantly higher after bioresorbable plate fixation at 1 (T-8.94%, B-25.4%, p<0.001), 2 (T-11.9%, B-24.1%, p=0.002) and 5 (T-16.4%, B-26.4%, p=0.036) years respectively. One paper reported an increased rate of infection and screw breakage with bioresorbable vs. titanium plates (p<0.05).The interpretation of these results is that titanium and bioresorbable plate fixation produce a non-significantly different rate of bone union, however bioresorbable fixation is associated with a higher rate of complications resulting in plate removal, including infection, inflammation and screw breakage.
E-mail: shp38@cam.ac.uk
Cancer Science & Therapy received 5332 citations as per Google Scholar report
Spanish 
Chinese 
Russian 
German 
French 
Japanese 
Portuguese 
Hindi 