A comprehensive study on maxillofacial trauma conducted in Yamunanagar, India

Rishi Bali ^a,*  , Parveen Sharma^a , Amandeep Garg ^a , Guneet Dhillon ^a

^a Department of OMFS, D.A.V. Dental College and M.M. General Hospital, Yamunanagar – 135001,India.

Abstract:

Background: The Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, D.A.V [C] Dental College and Hospital, Yamuna Nagar, Haryana, India conducted a study on patients with maxillofacial fractures in a time span of seven years (2003-2010). The purpose of this study was to evaluate their aetiology, incidence, patterns and different modalities employed for management.

Methods: In this study, 740 patients with 1054 fractures were evaluated clinically and radiographically, based on which closed reduction and open reduction was undertaken. Review of patient records included: Age, sex, time, mechanism and etiology of injury, history of bleeding, unconsciousness and prior first aid, type of vehicle and use of preventive measures, type of fracture and treatment modalities.

Results: Road traffic accidents accounted for highest number of fractures predominantly occurring in the age group of 21-30 years (38.3%)1,2. Males incurred more fractures with a male female ratio of 4.2: 1.Mandible was the most commonly fractured bone with parasymphysis being the commonest affected site.76.66% patients had associated head injury and 15.68 % had history of unconsciousness. Open reduction and internal fixation was the preferred modality for mandible whereas the mid face fractures were treated more often by closed methods.

Conclusions: Injuries occurred more commonly in 20 – 40 age range with road traffic accident being the major etiological factor. Majority of the patients were driving two wheelers and most were under the effect of alcohol. Most of the injuries occurred during night and road traffic accidents (71.89%) were found to be the major etiological factor. Out of 532 road traffic accidents, 490 patients (66.2%) were on two wheelers, among whom 49(10%) were wearing helmet. In the mandible, fractures occurred most commonly in the parasymphyseal region (224, 30.2%), and out of the 314 fractures of the middle third showed, 155 (49.4%) ZMC. OPG was the most commonly advised X-ray. With regard to treatment modalities, 36.8% of all the mandibular fractures (740) were treated by closed reduction, 62.6% were treated using open reduction and 0.5% was under observation only.

KEY WORDS: Maxillofacial trauma; Fractures; Clinical Study

Received  2012-11-15

Accepted  2013-04-08

J Inj Violence Res. 2013 Jun; 5(2): 108-116. doi: 10.5249/ jivr.v5i2.331

Maxillofacial region (MFR) involves soft and hard tissues forming the face extending from frontal bone superiorly to the mandible inferiorly. The face being the most exposed part of the body is particularly prone to trauma. Trauma to the facial region causes injuries to skeletal components, dentition as well as soft tissues of the face. Injuries to the maxillofacial region are increasing in frequency and severity because of the heavy reliance on road transportation and the increasing socioeconomic activities of the population. ^1-3

 Every 30 seconds someone dies on the world’s roads. Annually over 1 million people die and over 25 million are injured or permanently disabled from road traffic injuries.⁴ The primary cause of maxillofacial fractures throughout the world is road traffic accidents and assaults.⁵ Telfer MR et al (1991)⁶ conducted a study in United Kingdom, and reported that total number of patients with facial bone fractures had risen from 79 per annum in 1977 to 94 per annum in 1987, an increase of 20% which was highly significant, statistically. Number of patients injured in RTA had decreased by 34% while number of patients injured in assaults had increased by 47%. Other causes of maxillofacial fractures include falls, hit by animal, work related and sports related injuries.

In India inspite of the great impact of maxillofacial traumatic injuries on the patient’s quality of life, there is inadequate information about the epidemiological characteristic of this problem. In this backdrop, the present study has been undertaken to evaluate (i) the etiology of trauma and incidence of fractures according to the cause and establish relationship between the cause and fracture pattern. (ii) The increase in incidence of trauma due to alcohol intake. (iii) The incidence of fractures with respect to two wheelers and four wheelers. (iv) The pattern of maxillofacial injuries sustained by helmet and nonhelmeted motorcyclists in cases of two wheelers and in those wearing seat belts in case of four wheelers. (v) To identify anatomical site of fracture and associated injuries, and (vi) to evaluate different modalities of treatment rendered.

The patients with maxillofacial fractures managed in the Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, D.A.V [C] Dental College and Hospital, Yamuna Nagar, Haryana, India in a time span of seven years (2003-2010) were selected for the study. All patients were treated irrespective of age, sex, caste, religion and socio-economic status. Patients were evaluated for any maxillofacial fracture by assessing clinically the displacement of fractured fragments, functional and cosmetic deficits, patient's age and patient's medical status. Exact determination of the site and pattern of bony injury was determined by correlating it radiographically using any of the following radiographs and CT scan as per indication the parameters on which patients were evaluated included. 

1. Age of patient, 2. Gender distribution of patient, 3. Time of injury, 4. Etiology of fracture, 5. Mechanism of injury, 6. Type of vehicle, 7. Type of passenger (driver/pillion rider), 8. Use of helmet or seat belts, 9. Under the effect of alcohol or drugs, 10. History of bleeding, 11. History of unconsciousness, 12. Any prior first aid, 13. X-rays advised, 14. Site of fracture, 15. Associated injuries and 16. Treatment modalities.

The significances of the findings were evaluated using Pearson Chi-Square  test .

The 740 patients with 1054 maxillofacial fractures, managed in the Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery from August 2003 to July 2010, were divided into 7 age groups. (Table 1, 2, 3)

Out of total 740 patients with maxillofacial fractures, 600 were males (81.08%) as against 140 females (18.9%), giving a male to female ratio of 4.2:1. (Table 4)

Most of the injuries occurred at night (48.1%). Injuries occurred at mid day and morning with almost equal frequency (26.75%) and (25.13%) respectively. (Table 5)

Based on statistical analysis (Chi-Square Tests) it was concluded that majority of the injuries occurred during night (48.1%), and based on Lindahl’s classification of mechanism of injury,⁷ 9.3% patients were static individuals, 49.9% patients were moving and 40.8% patients were under combination group. (Table 6)

Among the various etiological factors responsible for maxillofacial fractures, road traffic accidents (71.89%) were found to be the major etiological factor. (Table 7)

Out of 532 road traffic accidents, 490 patients (66.2%) were on two wheelers, 28 patients (3.8%) on four wheelers and 14 (1.9%) were pedestrians. Out of these 490 patients on two wheelers, 374 patients (76.3%) were drivers and 116 (23.7%) were pillion riders. Out of 28 patients on four wheelers, 15 patients (53.6%) were drivers, 4 (14.3%) were front seaters and 9 (32.1%) were rear seaters. Out of 490 patients driving two wheelers, 49(10%) were wearing helmet. (Table 8)

None of the pillion rider was wearing helmet. Out of 28 patients driving four wheelers, 9 (32.14%) were wearing seat belts. None of the front seater or rear seater passengers was wearing seat belts. (Table 9)

Among the 740 patients, 26 (3.5%) were under the effect of alcohol. (Table 10)

664 patients reported history of oral bleed (89.7%), 59 patients (7.9%) reported nasal bleed and 14 (1.9%) had ear bleed. 0.4% patients (3) had no history of oral, nasal or ear bleed. (Table 11)

Out of total 740 patients, 116 patients (15.68%) reported history of unconsciousness. (Table 12)

Among 740 patients of maxillofacial fractures, total 1054 fractures occurred including 117 dentoalveolar fractures (11.1%), average 1.4 fractures per patient. The site distribution of the fractures showed 740 fractures in the mandible (70.2%) including dentoalveolar fractures. Rest 314 (29.8%) fractures were distributed in rest of the maxillofacial skeleton. (Table 13)

In the mandible, fractures occurred most commonly in the parasymphyseal region (224, 30.2%), followed by condylar region (213, 28.78%). Among the condylar fractures 6.2% (46), were bilateral whereas 16.4% (121) were unilateral condylar fractures. Third most common site for the fractures was angle (147, 19.9%), followed by body (72, 9.7%), dentoalveolar (34, 4.5%) and symphysis (12, 1.6%). Least common fractures reported were ramal fractures (6, 0.8%) and coronoid fractures (6, 0.8%). (Table 14)

The site distribution of the 314 fractures of the middle third showed, 155 (49.4%) ZMC fractures, 80 (28.3%) maxillary dentoalveolar fractures, 38 (12.1%) Le Fort II, 19 (6.05%) Le Fort I, 11 (3.5%) Le Fort III, 3 (0.95%) Palatal split, 4 (1.3%) nasal and 1 (0.3%) NOE fractures. (Table 15, 16)

Data with regard to associated injuries in patients with maxillofacial fractures demonstrated that patients had associated injuries. Of these 115 patients (76.66%) had head injuries and 35 patients (23.33%) had orthopedic injuries. (Table 17)

X –rays were advised to confirm the diagnosis of the fractures. OPG was commonly advised (71.3%) followed by IOPA (10.4%). SMV and PNS were done in 8.4% and 6.6% patients respectively. CT scan was done in 2.2 % patients and PA mandible in 1%. (Table 18)

With regard to treatment modalities, 36.8% of all the mandibular fractures (740) were treated by closed reduction, 62.6% were treated using open reduction and 0.5% was under observation only. Among closed reduction group, 35.5% were treated using arch bars and other forms of interdental wiring while splints with circummandibular wiring were used in1.35%. (Table 19)

Of the 314 middle third fractures, 48.4% were treated using closed reduction, 39.5% using open reduction, 12.1% using observation only. Among closed reduction group, arch bars and other forms of interdental wiring were used in 37.9%, splints in 1.2%, internal skeletal suspension in 3.8% and Gillie’s temporal approach in 5.4%. (Table 20)

Statistical analysis

Pearson Chi-Square test was used to evaluate the association/significance between the different variables/parameters.

The association between the time of injury and incidence of trauma was highly significant (P=0.019; p<0.01) and between incidence of trauma and mechanism of injury was very highly significant (p<0.001).

The association between incidence of trauma and alcohol consumption was also significant (p=0.048; p<0.05).

Very high significance was observed when age was associated to mechanism of injury, type of passenger, alcohol consumption and incidence of trauma (p<0.001).

No significant association  was found between the  incidence of trauma to  the type of vehicle or  (p>0.05) and   the mechanism of injury to helmet use (p>0.05).

This study showed that the maxillofacial fractures predominantly occurred in the age group of 21-30 years (38.3%), followed by 31-40 years (20.2%) and 11-20 years (19.7%). These findings being similar with the previous studies. ^8,9,10,11,12  The high incidence in 3rd decade of life might be due to the facts that people belonging to this decade are more active, energetic, take active participation in dangerous exercises and sports activities and mostly involved in violence. Men aged 21-40 years represent a group with intense social interaction and higher rates of morbidity, making them more susceptible to transport accidents and interpersonal violence.¹³

In the age group 0-10 years, incidence of the maxillofacial fractures was 6% in the present study. This finding was close to some previous studies, one of which showed an incidence of 9%,¹⁴ and 12% incidence¹⁵ was reported in the other. The low incidence has been explained by the high elasticity of children’s bones, the smaller face relative to head size and a decreased exposure to major trauma. ¹⁶

An incidence of 1.3% was noted for geriatric (>60 years) maxillofacial fractures in this study, probably as  this age group is less active and less involved in outdoor activities. Similar incidence was found by Kadkhodaie MH in Iran¹⁷ and Mahmeed BEA in Kuwait. ¹⁸

In men as compared to women the incidence of maxillofacial fractures had a ratio of 4.2: 1. This can be explained by the fact that men are more involved in outdoor activities and are also exposed to violent interactions as compared to females who are less exposed due to social and religious limitations. Male vehicle drivers also far outnumber females. ¹⁵ Similar ratio of 4:1 has been found in Finland by Salonem EM in 2010. ¹⁹

The analysis of the data on patients in the present study in reference to the time of the day exhibited that the most of accidents occurred at night (48.1%). Active nightlife and increasing number of clubs and pubs result in increase in traffic during night. Other reasons may be headlights glare at night and people are more drowsy and sleepy while returning late night from their jobs.

In our study considering the mechanism of injury, 49.9% of patients were moving at the time of injury and head on collision attributed to 40.8% of road traffic accidents, which was in accordance with a study conducted in Nigeria. ²⁰ Head-on collision is at its greatest on roads with narrow lanes, sharp curves, and no separation of lanes of opposing traffic and high volumes of traffic.

According to this study, 71.89% maxillofacial fractures were caused by road traffic accidents followed by falls (16.2%) and assaults (5.6%). Road traffic accidents are the main cause of maxillofacial trauma.^{21, 22, 23} The reasons for higher frequency of RTA in developing countries are inadequate road safety awareness, unsuitable road conditions without expansion of the motorway network, violation of speed limit, old vehicles without safety features, not wearing seat belts or helmets, violation of highway code and use of alcohol or other intoxicating agents. ²²

Two wheelers were responsible for the majority of road traffic accidents in the present study (66.2% of road crashes), probably because two wheelers are very popular as a mode of transport due to their fuel efficiency and ease of use in congested traffic. ²⁴

Only 10% people riding on two wheelers were wearing helmets in our study. In developing countries people avoid using safety measures. The frequency of wearing helmet in Tehran is 8.6%,²⁵ Vietnam 29.94%²⁶ and in Greece 20.02%.²⁷

In the present study, most of the patients injured in RTA are in Group III i.e. 21-30 years. These findings being similar with the previous studies. ^{28, 10} This is due to the reason that people of this age group are inexperienced drivers; they are most likely to exceed speed limits and do not use proper safety measures. Of the total number of patients included in the study there were 464 male patients and 72 female patients, who reported with a history of RTA.

Fall from height was the second most common cause of maxillofacial trauma in this study, found in 16.2 % cases. This is similar to the study by Taiseer Al-Khateeb⁸ who reported 20% incidence of maxillofacial injuries due to fall. Out of the total 119 patients who underwent trauma because of fall from height, 63 were females.

Sports related maxillofacial fractures occurred in 2.8% cases in this series. All the patients in this group belonged to 1st to 4th decade of life. This can be attributed to higher interest in sports in early childhood and young age. ²⁹

According to the site of fracture, in 70.2% cases mandible was involved as compared with 29.8% of middle third of facial skeleton fractures in this series. These results are similar to the previous studies in Jordan,⁸ UAE, ¹⁵ Bulgaria³⁰ and Tanzania²³ where mandible was more involved than the middle third. (Fig 1,2,3,4)

Mandibular fractures (68.7%) accounted for highest number of fractures due to RTA followed by middle third fractures (31.3%) in our study. Similarly in  sports related injuries , mandibular fractures (87.5%) were more common than the middle third fractures (12.5%)Mandible, being the most prominent bone in face, is often fractured more than the strongly supported middle third of the face. ¹⁶(Fig 5,6)

In the present series, among the mandibular fracture sites, parasymphysis (30.2%) was the most common fracture site followed by the condyle (28.78%). The location of fracture site appears to be directly related to the cause of injury in some instances and probably reflects the direction from which force was applied to the mandible. ¹⁵ Sports and altercation injuries most frequently resulted in angle fractures. Vehicular accidents and falls resulted in greater number of parasymphysis and condylar fractures as traffic accident victims commonly suffer posteriorly directed force to the mandible as a result of fall or chin striking the steering wheel or dashboard. ³¹

In our study, in middle third fractures, ZMC (49.4%) was most commonly involved. This is because of the prominent positions; zygomatic bone and nasal bone are more vulnerable to trauma. However in our study, there was less involvement of nasal fractures (1.3%). This was may be due to the reason that patients with nasal fractures often seek advice from ENT specialist rather than maxillofacial surgeons.

The incidence of associated injuries in the present study was 20.3%. Most common associated injury noted in our study was head injury (76.66%). This was similar to UAE studies in which associated injuries were 22.2% and with Nigerian series which reported 23% of associated injuries.^{32, 23} However more associated injuries recorded by Al-Khateeb et al in UAE (41%)¹⁰ and Schaftenaar E et al in Netherland (51.5%)²³  were attributed to the severity of trauma.

 Out of 740 patients, 116 (15.68%) patients gave history of loss of consciousness and CT scan was done in 2.2% of patients in the present series.

Before reporting to our institute, 79.5% patients in our study took first aid from a local practioner or civil hospital. In our study most of the patients (99.6%) having maxillofacial trauma had history of bleeding (oral-89.7%, nasal-7.9% and ear-1.9%). Patients have a tendency to rush to a nearest doctor to get the bleeding arrested.

Several methods of closed reduction were used in the treatment of mandibular fractures such as Ehrich’s arch bar, other interdental wirings and splints. Out of 740 mandibular fractures, 273 (36.8%) and out of 314 mid-face fractures, 152 (48.4%) were treated with closed reduction in our study. No complications concerning occlusion and mouth opening were encountered in these patients. In developing countries people prefer closed reduction than open reduction. ¹⁵

In the past 15 years, plate osteosynthesis has become popular in the management of facial fractures and in the treatment of mandibular fractures.³³ Surgeons prefer it because it offers stable and precise anatomical reduction of fragments, allows immediate recovery of function as it has no IMF, shortens the period of bone healing and decreases the recovery period. Despite the obvious advantages, it has not become popular in many developing countries mainly because of cost factors.  However, 55.7% of all maxillofacial fractures in our series were treated with open reduction and internal fixation. A higher proportion of fractured mandibles were treated surgically (62.6%) than were middle third (39.5%). Routinely, patients treated with ORIF were placed in inter maxillary fixation only intra-operatively. IMF was then released in all except for the cases which had concomitant condylar fractures, planned to treat conservatively with arch bars and IMF.

In our institute, open reduction and internal fixation using miniplates is the most preferred treatment plan for maxillofacial fractures. The technical and functional advantages of miniplate osteosynthesis over maxillomandibular fixation including the ease of use, precise anatomical reduction, limited or complete avoidance of maxillomandibular fixation, functional stability and improved mouth opening have made it more preferable.

References

1. Chandra Shekar BR, Reddy C. A five-year retrospective statistical analysis of maxillofacial injuries in patients admitted and treated at two hospitals of Mysore city. Indian J Dent Res. 2008 Oct-Dec;19(4):304-8. CrossRef | Google Scholar | PubMed

2. Fonseca RL, Walker R, Betts NJ. Oral and maxillofacial trauma, 2nd ed. Philadeiphia: WB Saunders, 1997.  

3. Kapoor P, Kalra N. A retrospective analysis of maxillofacial injuries in patients reporting to a tertiary care hospital in East Delhi. Int J  Crit Illn Inj Sci. 2012 Jan;2(1):6-10.CrossRef | Google Scholar | PubMed

4. Mohan D. Transportation Research and Injury Prevention Programe (TRIPP). Bulletin.2006; 3(3):1-2.

5. Oji C. Jaw fractures in Enugu, Nigeria, 1985-95. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 1999 Apr; 37(2):106-9.CrossRef | Google Scholar | PubMed

6. Telfer MR, Jones GM, Shepherd JP. Trends in the aetiology of maxillofacial fractures in the United Kingdom (1977-1987). Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 1991Aug; 29(4): 250-5.CrossRef | Google Scholar | PubMed

7. Lindahl L. Condylar fractures of the mandible: I. Classification and relation to age, occlusion, and concomitant injuries of teeth and teeth-supporting structures, and fractures of the mandibular body. Int J Oral Surg. 1977 Feb; 6(1): 12-21.CrossRef | Google Scholar | PubMed

8. Bataineh AB. Etiology and incidence of maxillofacial fractures in the north of Jordan. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod. 1998 Jul;86(1):31-5.CrossRef | Google Scholar | PubMed

 9. Fasola AO, Nyako EA, Obiechina AE, Arotiba JT.Trends in the characteristics of maxillofacial fractures in Nigeria. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2003 Oct; 61(10):1140-3.CrossRef | Google Scholar | PubMed

10. Al-Khateeb T, Abdullah FM.Craniomaxillofacial injuries in the United Arab Emirates : a retrospective study. J Oral Maxillofac Surg.2007Jun; 65(6): 1094-101.CrossRef | Google Scholar | PubMed

11. Olasoji HO, Tahir A, Arotiba GT. Changing pictures of facial fractures in northern Nigeria. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2002 Apr; 40(2): 140-3.CrossRef | PubMed

12. Adebayo ET, Ajike OS, Adekeye EO. Analysis of the pattern of maxillofacial fractures in Kaduna, Nigeria. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2003 Dec;41(6):396-400.CrossRef | Google Scholar | PubMed

13. 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 Jul; 102(1): 28-34.CrossRef | Google Scholar | PubMed

14. Van Beek GJ, Merkx CA. Changes in the pattern of fractures of the maxillofacial skeleton. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 1999 Dec;28(6): 424-8.CrossRef | Google Scholar | PubMed

15. Al Ahmed HE, Jaber MA, Abu Fanas SH, Karas M. The pattern of maxillofacial fractures in Sharjah, United Arab Emirates: a review of 230 cases. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod. 2004 Aug; 98(2): 166­-70.CrossRef | Google Scholar | PubMed

16. Adeyemo WL, Iwegbu IO, Bello SA, Okoturo E, Olaitan AA, Ladeinde AL, et al. Management of mandibular fractures in a developing country: a review of 314 cases from two urban centers in Nigeria. World J Surg. 2008 Dec; 32(12): 2631–5.CrossRef | Google Scholar | PubMed

17. Kadkhodaie MH. Three-year review of facial fractures at a teaching hospital in northern Iran. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2006 Jun; 44(3): 229-31.CrossRef | Google Scholar | PubMed

18. Al Mahmeed BE , Morris RE, Ibrahim M, Belal MS, Al Ramzy A, Al Rassed B, et al. Maxillofacial trauma in Kuwait : a retrospective study (1985-1989).  Saudi Denta J.1994;6:13-6. Google Scholar

19. Salonen EM, Koivikko MP, Koskinen SK.Violence-related facial trauma: analysis of multidetector computed tomography findings of 727 patients. Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2010 Feb; 39(2):107-12.CrossRef | Google Scholar | PubMed

20. Oginni FO, Ugboko VI, Ogundipe O, Adegbehingbe BO. Motorcycle- related maxillofacial injuries among Nigerian intracity road users. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2006Jan; 64(1): 56-62.CrossRef | Google Scholar | PubMed

21. Lida S, Kogo M, Sugiura T, Mima T, Matsuya T. Retrospective analysis of 1502 patients with facial fractures. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg.2001 Aug;30(4):286-90. CrossRef | Google Scholar | PubMed

22. Ansari MH. Maxillofacial fractures in Hamedan province, Iran: a retrospective study (1987-2001). J Craniomaxillofac Surg. 2004 Feb; 32(1): 28-34.CrossRef | Google Scholar | PubMed

23. Schaftenaar E, Bastiaens GJ, Simon EN, Merkx MA. Presentation and management of maxillofacial trauma in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania. East Afr Med J. 2009 Jun; 86(6): 254-8.CrossRef | Google Scholar | PubMed

24. Tripude BH, Naik RS, Anjankar AJ, Khajuria BK. A study of the pattern of cranio-cerebal injuries in road traffic accident. Journal of Indian Academy of Forensic Medicine. 1998; 20 (1):9-12.

25. Zargar M, Khaji A, Karbakhsh M. Pattern of motorcycle-related injuries in Tehran, 1999 to 2000: a study in 6 hospitals. East Mediterr Health J. 2006 Jan-Mar;12(1-2):81-7.  Google Scholar | PubMed

26. Hugh DV, Stevenson MR, Ivers RQ. Prevalence of helmet use among motorcycle riders in Vietnam. Inj Prev.2006 Dec; 12(6):409-13.CrossRef | Google Scholar | PubMed

27. Skalkidou A, Petridou E, Papadopoulos FC, Dessypris N, Trichopoulos D. Factors affecting motorcycle helmet use in the population of Greater Athens, Greece. Inj Prev.1999 Dec; 5(4):264-7.CrossRef | Google Scholar | PubMed

28. Ugboko VI, Odusanya SA, Fagade OO. Maxillofacial fractures in a semi-urban Nigerian teaching hospital. A review of 442 cases. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 1998 Aug; 27(4): 286-9.CrossRef | Google Scholar | PubMed

29. Cassas KJ , Cassettari-Wayhs A. Childhood and adolescent sports-related overuse injuries. Am Fam Physician. 2006 Mar 15; 73(6):1014-22.Google Scholar | PubMed

30. Bakardjiev A, Pechalova P. Maxillofacial fractures in Southern Bulgaria – a retrospective study of 1706 cases. J Craniomaxillofac Surg. 2007Apr; 35(3):147-50.CrossRef | Google Scholar | PubMed

31. King RE, Scianna JM, Petruzzelli GJ. Mandible fractures patterns: a suburban trauma centre experience. Am J Otolaryngol. 2004 Sep-Oct; 25(5): 301-7.CrossRef | PubMed

32. Adeyemo WL, Ladeinde AL, Oquniewe MO, James O. Trends and characteristics of oral and maxillofacial injuries in Nigeria: a review of the literature. Head Face Med. 2005 Oct 4;1:7.CrossRef | Google Scholar | PubMed

33. Bali R, Sharma P, Jindal S, Sharma R. Bone resorption after bioresorbable fixation of a fractured paediatric mandible - a case report. Oral surgery.2010;4(1): 48-50.CrossRef | Google Scholar