3.8 Review

The pattern of maxillofacial fractures in Sharjah, United Arab Emirates: A review of 230 cases

出版社

MOSBY-ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.tripleo.2004.01.020

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective. Maxillofacial injuries constitute a substantial proportion of cases of trauma. This descriptive analytical study assesses the cause, type, incidence, demographic, and treatment data of maxillofacial fractures managed at AI Qassimi Hospital in Sharjah, United Arab Emirates, during a 4-year period and compares them with the existing body of literature on the subject. Study design. The medical records and radiographs of 230 patients treated for maxillofacial fractures at the AI Qassimi General Hospital over a 4-year period (from 1999 to 2002) were reviewed. A number of parameters, including the patient's age, gender, race, occupation, and mechanism of injury, type of facial injuries, treatment modality, and postoperative complications were recorded and assessed. Results. Men 20 to 29 years of age sustained the most maxillofacial fractures. The ratio of males to females was 11:1. Most fractures were caused by motor vehicle crashes (75%), followed by falls (12%) and violent assaults (8%). There were 150 (51%) mandibular, 102 (34%) maxillary, and 22 (7.4%) zygomatic fractures. Regarding distribution of mandibular fractures, the majority (25%, 38/150) occurred in the condyle, 23% (35/150) in the angle, and 20% (30/150) in the body. The distribution of maxillary fractures were 49.0% (50/102) dentoalveolar, 29.4% (30/102) Le Fort I, and 10.7% (11/102) were Le Fort II fractures. More than half of all cases were treated by closed reduction (67%). Complications occurred in 5.6% of patients. Conclusion. The findings of this study, compared with similar studies reported in the literature, support the view that the causes and incidence of maxillofacial injuries vary from one country to another and, as such, can provide a guide to the design of programs geared toward prevention and treatment.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

3.8
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据