Related Experiment Video
Updated: Dec 9, 2025
04:13
Less-Invasive Technique for Non-stabilized Mandibular Fracture in Mouse Models
Published on: September 27, 2024
684
An Update on Maxillary Fractures: A Heterogenous Group
Jason E Cohn1, Zachary Iezzi2, Jordan J Licata1
1Department of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery.
The Journal of Craniofacial Surgery
|September 5, 2020
Summary
Maxillary fractures vary widely, with different types requiring unique diagnostic and treatment approaches. This study reviews these differences to guide clinical management of facial trauma.
Area of Science:
- Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery
- Trauma Surgery
- Plastic Surgery
Background:
- Maxillary fractures represent a diverse group of facial injuries.
- Understanding the nuances of each fracture type is crucial for effective patient care.
Purpose of the Study:
- To review the various types of maxillary fractures.
- To highlight the distinct diagnostic and therapeutic strategies for each fracture classification.
Main Methods:
- Retrospective chart review of 141 patients with maxillary fractures (2016-2017).
- Descriptive statistics and chi-square analysis were employed for data categorization.
Main Results:
- The most common fractures were maxillary sinus (29%) and zygomaticomaxillary complex (ZMC) (26%).
- Treatment varied by fracture type, with dentoalveolar fractures often managed with wire splinting and LeFort fractures with maxillomandibular fixation (MMF)/open reduction internal fixation (ORIF).
- Frontal process and maxillary sinus fractures were managed non-operatively, while ZMC and LeFort fractures underwent surgical repair within a week.
Conclusions:
- Maxillary fractures exhibit significant heterogeneity compared to other maxillofacial injuries.
- Treatment protocols are individualized based on fracture severity, type, and available hospital resources.
- Multidisciplinary provider teams are often involved in managing complex maxillary trauma.
