Abstract:Purpose: The aim of this retrospective study was to analyze the characteristics of delayed panfacial fractures and evaluate treatment results.Patients and Methods: Thirty-three patients with delayed panfacial fractures were treated in the Maxillofacial Trauma Center of Peking University, School and Hospital of Stomatology between 1998 and 2004. Each patient was examined by computed tomography (CT) scans before operation. For those who had no severe opening restriction, dental impressions were taken to fabricate dental casts. For those with severely comminuted fractures, 3-dimensional (3D) models of the facial skeleton were used. Re-establishing the continuity of the mandible was the first step and then used as a platform to reconstruct the maxillary fractures via maxillomandibular fixation after Le Fort I osteotomy. The third step was to restore the mid- and upper-facial width and projection by coronal approach to expose the zygomatic complex and frontal bone/sinus and/or naso-orbito-ethmoid (NOE) fractures.Results: There were 3 types of mandibular fractures that affected the treatment plan: 1) type 1, mandibular body/symphysis fracture(s) (17/33, 51-52%); 2) type 11, mandibular angle and/or condylar fracture(s) (6/33, 18.18%); and 3) type 111, both mandibular body/symphysis and angle/condylar fractures (10/33, 30-30%). Fourteen cases were associated with NOE fractures (42.42%) and 3 cases had frontal sinus fractures (9.1%). Twelve cases had enophthalmos (36-36%) and 3 lost 1 eyeball. The order of treatment was dependent on the mandibular fracture type. For type I fractures, reconstructing the mandibular arch was the first step. For type 11 fractures, repairing the angle, ascending rami, and condylar areas was the first step. For type III fractures, when both mandibular height and arch were disrupted, freeing the malunited angle or condyle was the first step before restoring the mandibular arch form. Reconstruction of the mandibular height and projection was then carried out. For all 3 types, the second step was to restore the mid- and upper facial width and projection by reducing the zygomatic complex and frontal bone/sinus or NOE fractures. Maxillary fixation across the Le Fort I level was the last step. Le Fort I osteotomy was used for all 33 cases. Bone grafts and soft tissue suspension also were used. Twenty-one cases (63.64%) had good results, 7 (21.21%) cases were acceptable, and 5 (15.15%) were not good. There were 7 cases (21.21%) that still had soft tissue problems that needed secondary operations.Conclusions: Reconstruction of the mandible first with Le Fort I osteotomy is a good way to treat delayed panfacial fractures. Computed tomography and 3D CT, model surgery, and occasionally 3D models are necessary aids for diagnosis and treatment. Soft tissue Problems, including lacerations and asymmetries, were often the factors that caused an unfavorable outcome. (c) 2007 American Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons.

Buried planar and channel waveguides in sapphire and Ti:sapphire by proton implantation

Cat bite wound infections: a prospective clinical and microbiological study at three emergency wards in Stockholm, Sweden.

A Case Report of A Mid-Front Head Injury Using Starry Sky Surgical Approach of the Face

Adolescent With a Boating Injury

Pediatric Craniomaxillofacial Fractures

Risk Factors for Acute-Level Hospital Course in Pediatric Craniofacial Fractures

Reconstruction of a Combined Frontal Bone and Orbital Roof Defect With Associated Meningoencephalocele Using 3D Modeling and 3D Navigation

Pediatric maxillary fractures

Soy isoflavones and bone health: a double-edged sword?

Panfacial Fractures: Analysis of 33 Cases Treated Late

Analysis of Pediatric Maxillofacial Fractures: A 10-year Retrospective Study

Preoperative differentiation between tumor‐related ovarian torsion and rupture of ovarian cyst preoperatively diagnosed as benign: A retrospective study

Epidemiology of Craniomaxillofacial Fractures over a 5-year period at a Midwestern Level 1 Trauma Center serving a large rural population

Complex-type penetrating injuries of craniomaxillofacial region

Management of Frontal Sinus Fractures at a Level 1 Trauma Center: Retrospective Study and Review of the Literature

Repositioning Complex Midface Fractures via Coronal Incision Combined with Subciliary Incision Approach

A Retrospective Study of 1084 Facial Fractures

Cranial reconstruction with titanium clamps in frontal comminuted depressed skull fractures.

Pediatric Mandible Fractures: Mechanism, Pattern of Injury, Fracture Characteristics, and Management by Age

The Different Surgical Approaches to Maxillofacial Reconstruction after Ballistic Trauma

Intraoral Approach for Zygomaticomaxillary Complex and Orbital Floor Fracture With a Customized Ballooning Technique