Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research, ISSN - 0973 - 709X

Users Online : 35491

AbstractMaterial and MethodsResultsDiscussionConclusionAcknowledgementReferencesDOI and Others
Article in PDF How to Cite Citation Manager Readers' Comments (0) Audio Visual Article Statistics Link to PUBMED Print this Article Send to a Friend
Advertisers Access Statistics Resources

Dr Mohan Z Mani

"Thank you very much for having published my article in record time.I would like to compliment you and your entire staff for your promptness, courtesy, and willingness to be customer friendly, which is quite unusual.I was given your reference by a colleague in pathology,and was able to directly phone your editorial office for clarifications.I would particularly like to thank the publication managers and the Assistant Editor who were following up my article. I would also like to thank you for adjusting the money I paid initially into payment for my modified article,and refunding the balance.
I wish all success to your journal and look forward to sending you any suitable similar article in future"

Dr Mohan Z Mani,
Professor & Head,
Department of Dermatolgy,
Believers Church Medical College,
Thiruvalla, Kerala
On Sep 2018

Prof. Somashekhar Nimbalkar

"Over the last few years, we have published our research regularly in Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research. Having published in more than 20 high impact journals over the last five years including several high impact ones and reviewing articles for even more journals across my fields of interest, we value our published work in JCDR for their high standards in publishing scientific articles. The ease of submission, the rapid reviews in under a month, the high quality of their reviewers and keen attention to the final process of proofs and publication, ensure that there are no mistakes in the final article. We have been asked clarifications on several occasions and have been happy to provide them and it exemplifies the commitment to quality of the team at JCDR."

Prof. Somashekhar Nimbalkar
Head, Department of Pediatrics, Pramukhswami Medical College, Karamsad
Chairman, Research Group, Charutar Arogya Mandal, Karamsad
National Joint Coordinator - Advanced IAP NNF NRP Program
Ex-Member, Governing Body, National Neonatology Forum, New Delhi
Ex-President - National Neonatology Forum Gujarat State Chapter
Department of Pediatrics, Pramukhswami Medical College, Karamsad, Anand, Gujarat.
On Sep 2018

Dr. Kalyani R

"Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research is at present a well-known Indian originated scientific journal which started with a humble beginning. I have been associated with this journal since many years. I appreciate the Editor, Dr. Hemant Jain, for his constant effort in bringing up this journal to the present status right from the scratch. The journal is multidisciplinary. It encourages in publishing the scientific articles from postgraduates and also the beginners who start their career. At the same time the journal also caters for the high quality articles from specialty and super-specialty researchers. Hence it provides a platform for the scientist and researchers to publish. The other aspect of it is, the readers get the information regarding the most recent developments in science which can be used for teaching, research, treating patients and to some extent take preventive measures against certain diseases. The journal is contributing immensely to the society at national and international level."

Dr Kalyani R
Professor and Head
Department of Pathology
Sri Devaraj Urs Medical College
Sri Devaraj Urs Academy of Higher Education and Research , Kolar, Karnataka
On Sep 2018

Dr. Saumya Navit

"As a peer-reviewed journal, the Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research provides an opportunity to researchers, scientists and budding professionals to explore the developments in the field of medicine and dentistry and their varied specialities, thus extending our view on biological diversities of living species in relation to medicine.
‘Knowledge is treasure of a wise man.’ The free access of this journal provides an immense scope of learning for the both the old and the young in field of medicine and dentistry as well. The multidisciplinary nature of the journal makes it a better platform to absorb all that is being researched and developed. The publication process is systematic and professional. Online submission, publication and peer reviewing makes it a user-friendly journal.
As an experienced dentist and an academician, I proudly recommend this journal to the dental fraternity as a good quality open access platform for rapid communication of their cutting-edge research progress and discovery.
I wish JCDR a great success and I hope that journal will soar higher with the passing time."

Dr Saumya Navit
Professor and Head
Department of Pediatric Dentistry
Saraswati Dental College
On Sep 2018

Dr. Arunava Biswas

"My sincere attachment with JCDR as an author as well as reviewer is a learning experience . Their systematic approach in publication of article in various categories is really praiseworthy.
Their prompt and timely response to review's query and the manner in which they have set the reviewing process helps in extracting the best possible scientific writings for publication.
It's a honour and pride to be a part of the JCDR team. My very best wishes to JCDR and hope it will sparkle up above the sky as a high indexed journal in near future."

Dr. Arunava Biswas
MD, DM (Clinical Pharmacology)
Assistant Professor
Department of Pharmacology
Calcutta National Medical College & Hospital , Kolkata

Dr. C.S. Ramesh Babu
" Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research (JCDR) is a multi-specialty medical and dental journal publishing high quality research articles in almost all branches of medicine. The quality of printing of figures and tables is excellent and comparable to any International journal. An added advantage is nominal publication charges and monthly issue of the journal and more chances of an article being accepted for publication. Moreover being a multi-specialty journal an article concerning a particular specialty has a wider reach of readers of other related specialties also. As an author and reviewer for several years I find this Journal most suitable and highly recommend this Journal."
Best regards,
C.S. Ramesh Babu,
Associate Professor of Anatomy,
Muzaffarnagar Medical College,
On Aug 2018

Dr. Arundhathi. S
"Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research (JCDR) is a reputed peer reviewed journal and is constantly involved in publishing high quality research articles related to medicine. Its been a great pleasure to be associated with this esteemed journal as a reviewer and as an author for a couple of years. The editorial board consists of many dedicated and reputed experts as its members and they are doing an appreciable work in guiding budding researchers. JCDR is doing a commendable job in scientific research by promoting excellent quality research & review articles and case reports & series. The reviewers provide appropriate suggestions that improve the quality of articles. I strongly recommend my fraternity to encourage JCDR by contributing their valuable research work in this widely accepted, user friendly journal. I hope my collaboration with JCDR will continue for a long time".

Dr. Arundhathi. S
MBBS, MD (Pathology),
Sanjay Gandhi institute of trauma and orthopedics,
On Aug 2018

Dr. Mamta Gupta,
"It gives me great pleasure to be associated with JCDR, since last 2-3 years. Since then I have authored, co-authored and reviewed about 25 articles in JCDR. I thank JCDR for giving me an opportunity to improve my own skills as an author and a reviewer.
It 's a multispecialty journal, publishing high quality articles. It gives a platform to the authors to publish their research work which can be available for everyone across the globe to read. The best thing about JCDR is that the full articles of all medical specialties are available as pdf/html for reading free of cost or without institutional subscription, which is not there for other journals. For those who have problem in writing manuscript or do statistical work, JCDR comes for their rescue.
The journal has a monthly publication and the articles are published quite fast. In time compared to other journals. The on-line first publication is also a great advantage and facility to review one's own articles before going to print. The response to any query and permission if required, is quite fast; this is quite commendable. I have a very good experience about seeking quick permission for quoting a photograph (Fig.) from a JCDR article for my chapter authored in an E book. I never thought it would be so easy. No hassles.
Reviewing articles is no less a pain staking process and requires in depth perception, knowledge about the topic for review. It requires time and concentration, yet I enjoy doing it. The JCDR website especially for the reviewers is quite user friendly. My suggestions for improving the journal is, more strict review process, so that only high quality articles are published. I find a a good number of articles in Obst. Gynae, hence, a new journal for this specialty titled JCDR-OG can be started. May be a bimonthly or quarterly publication to begin with. Only selected articles should find a place in it.
An yearly reward for the best article authored can also incentivize the authors. Though the process of finding the best article will be not be very easy. I do not know how reviewing process can be improved. If an article is being reviewed by two reviewers, then opinion of one can be communicated to the other or the final opinion of the editor can be communicated to the reviewer if requested for. This will help one’s reviewing skills.
My best wishes to Dr. Hemant Jain and all the editorial staff of JCDR for their untiring efforts to bring out this journal. I strongly recommend medical fraternity to publish their valuable research work in this esteemed journal, JCDR".

Dr. Mamta Gupta
(Ex HOD Obs &Gynae, Hindu Rao Hospital and associated NDMC Medical College, Delhi)
Aug 2018

Dr. Rajendra Kumar Ghritlaharey

"I wish to thank Dr. Hemant Jain, Editor-in-Chief Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research (JCDR), for asking me to write up few words.
Writing is the representation of language in a textual medium i e; into the words and sentences on paper. Quality medical manuscript writing in particular, demands not only a high-quality research, but also requires accurate and concise communication of findings and conclusions, with adherence to particular journal guidelines. In medical field whether working in teaching, private, or in corporate institution, everyone wants to excel in his / her own field and get recognised by making manuscripts publication.

Authors are the souls of any journal, and deserve much respect. To publish a journal manuscripts are needed from authors. Authors have a great responsibility for producing facts of their work in terms of number and results truthfully and an individual honesty is expected from authors in this regards. Both ways its true "No authors-No manuscripts-No journals" and "No journals–No manuscripts–No authors". Reviewing a manuscript is also a very responsible and important task of any peer-reviewed journal and to be taken seriously. It needs knowledge on the subject, sincerity, honesty and determination. Although the process of reviewing a manuscript is a time consuming task butit is expected to give one's best remarks within the time frame of the journal.
Salient features of the JCDR: It is a biomedical, multidisciplinary (including all medical and dental specialities), e-journal, with wide scope and extensive author support. At the same time, a free text of manuscript is available in HTML and PDF format. There is fast growing authorship and readership with JCDR as this can be judged by the number of articles published in it i e; in Feb 2007 of its first issue, it contained 5 articles only, and now in its recent volume published in April 2011, it contained 67 manuscripts. This e-journal is fulfilling the commitments and objectives sincerely, (as stated by Editor-in-chief in his preface to first edition) i e; to encourage physicians through the internet, especially from the developing countries who witness a spectrum of disease and acquire a wealth of knowledge to publish their experiences to benefit the medical community in patients care. I also feel that many of us have work of substance, newer ideas, adequate clinical materials but poor in medical writing and hesitation to submit the work and need help. JCDR provides authors help in this regards.
Timely publication of journal: Publication of manuscripts and bringing out the issue in time is one of the positive aspects of JCDR and is possible with strong support team in terms of peer reviewers, proof reading, language check, computer operators, etc. This is one of the great reasons for authors to submit their work with JCDR. Another best part of JCDR is "Online first Publications" facilities available for the authors. This facility not only provides the prompt publications of the manuscripts but at the same time also early availability of the manuscripts for the readers.
Indexation and online availability: Indexation transforms the journal in some sense from its local ownership to the worldwide professional community and to the public.JCDR is indexed with Embase & EMbiology, Google Scholar, Index Copernicus, Chemical Abstracts Service, Journal seek Database, Indian Science Abstracts, to name few of them. Manuscriptspublished in JCDR are available on major search engines ie; google, yahoo, msn.
In the era of fast growing newer technologies, and in computer and internet friendly environment the manuscripts preparation, submission, review, revision, etc and all can be done and checked with a click from all corer of the world, at any time. Of course there is always a scope for improvement in every field and none is perfect. To progress, one needs to identify the areas of one's weakness and to strengthen them.
It is well said that "happy beginning is half done" and it fits perfectly with JCDR. It has grown considerably and I feel it has already grown up from its infancy to adolescence, achieving the status of standard online e-journal form Indian continent since its inception in Feb 2007. This had been made possible due to the efforts and the hard work put in it. The way the JCDR is improving with every new volume, with good quality original manuscripts, makes it a quality journal for readers. I must thank and congratulate Dr Hemant Jain, Editor-in-Chief JCDR and his team for their sincere efforts, dedication, and determination for making JCDR a fast growing journal.
Every one of us: authors, reviewers, editors, and publisher are responsible for enhancing the stature of the journal. I wish for a great success for JCDR."

Thanking you
With sincere regards
Dr. Rajendra Kumar Ghritlaharey, M.S., M. Ch., FAIS
Associate Professor,
Department of Paediatric Surgery, Gandhi Medical College & Associated
Kamla Nehru & Hamidia Hospitals Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh 462 001 (India)
On May 11,2011

Dr. Shankar P.R.

"On looking back through my Gmail archives after being requested by the journal to write a short editorial about my experiences of publishing with the Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research (JCDR), I came across an e-mail from Dr. Hemant Jain, Editor, in March 2007, which introduced the new electronic journal. The main features of the journal which were outlined in the e-mail were extensive author support, cash rewards, the peer review process, and other salient features of the journal.
Over a span of over four years, we (I and my colleagues) have published around 25 articles in the journal. In this editorial, I plan to briefly discuss my experiences of publishing with JCDR and the strengths of the journal and to finally address the areas for improvement.
My experiences of publishing with JCDR: Overall, my experiences of publishing withJCDR have been positive. The best point about the journal is that it responds to queries from the author. This may seem to be simple and not too much to ask for, but unfortunately, many journals in the subcontinent and from many developing countries do not respond or they respond with a long delay to the queries from the authors 1. The reasons could be many, including lack of optimal secretarial and other support. Another problem with many journals is the slowness of the review process. Editorial processing and peer review can take anywhere between a year to two years with some journals. Also, some journals do not keep the contributors informed about the progress of the review process. Due to the long review process, the articles can lose their relevance and topicality. A major benefit with JCDR is the timeliness and promptness of its response. In Dr Jain's e-mail which was sent to me in 2007, before the introduction of the Pre-publishing system, he had stated that he had received my submission and that he would get back to me within seven days and he did!
Most of the manuscripts are published within 3 to 4 months of their submission if they are found to be suitable after the review process. JCDR is published bimonthly and the accepted articles were usually published in the next issue. Recently, due to the increased volume of the submissions, the review process has become slower and it ?? Section can take from 4 to 6 months for the articles to be reviewed. The journal has an extensive author support system and it has recently introduced a paid expedited review process. The journal also mentions the average time for processing the manuscript under different submission systems - regular submission and expedited review.
Strengths of the journal: The journal has an online first facility in which the accepted manuscripts may be published on the website before being included in a regular issue of the journal. This cuts down the time between their acceptance and the publication. The journal is indexed in many databases, though not in PubMed. The editorial board should now take steps to index the journal in PubMed. The journal has a system of notifying readers through e-mail when a new issue is released. Also, the articles are available in both the HTML and the PDF formats. I especially like the new and colorful page format of the journal. Also, the access statistics of the articles are available. The prepublication and the manuscript tracking system are also helpful for the authors.
Areas for improvement: In certain cases, I felt that the peer review process of the manuscripts was not up to international standards and that it should be strengthened. Also, the number of manuscripts in an issue is high and it may be difficult for readers to go through all of them. The journal can consider tightening of the peer review process and increasing the quality standards for the acceptance of the manuscripts. I faced occasional problems with the online manuscript submission (Pre-publishing) system, which have to be addressed.
Overall, the publishing process with JCDR has been smooth, quick and relatively hassle free and I can recommend other authors to consider the journal as an outlet for their work."

Dr. P. Ravi Shankar
KIST Medical College, P.O. Box 14142, Kathmandu, Nepal.
On April 2011

Dear team JCDR, I would like to thank you for the very professional and polite service provided by everyone at JCDR. While i have been in the field of writing and editing for sometime, this has been my first attempt in publishing a scientific paper.Thank you for hand-holding me through the process.

Dr. Anuradha
On Jan 2020

Important Notice

Original article / research
Year : 2023 | Month : February | Volume : 17 | Issue : 2 | Page : PC01 - PC04 Full Version

Transoral versus Extraoral Approach in the Management of Mandibular Angle Fracture: A Retrospective Study

Published: February 1, 2023 | DOI:
Ashish Shivendra Singhal, Sagar Nambiar, Aravind Lakshman Rao

1. Assistant Professor, Department of Plastic Surgery, Father Muller Medical College and Hospital, Mangalore, Karnataka, India. 2. Senior Resident, Department of General Surgery, Father Muller Medical College and Hospital, Mangalore, Karnataka, India. 3. Professor, Department of Plastic Surgery, Father Muller Medical College and Hospital, Mangalore, Karnataka, India.

Correspondence Address :
Dr. Ashish Shivendra Singhal,
Assistant Professor, Department of Plastic Surgery, Father Muller Medical College and Hospital, Mangalore, Dakshin Kannada-575002, Karnataka, India.


Introduction: Mandibular fractures are the most common of all maxillofacial fractures and almost one third of these have mandibular angle fractures. Restoration of anatomic form and the union of bone fragments is of utmost important during the management of mandibular angle fractures and several methods have been discussed in the literature.

Aim: To compare the transoral and extraoral approaches for the management of mandibular angle fractures in terms of postoperative outcomes including the incidence of postoperative pain, infection, scarring mouth opening and facial nerve injury.

Materials and Methods: This retrospective study was performed in the Department of Plastic Surgery, Father Muller Medical College and Hopsital, Mangalore, Karnataka, India, from January 2019 to December 2021. A total of 21 patients were divided into two groups; transoral (n=12) and extraoral (n=9), based on the type of approach used for surgery. The outcomes were assessed in both groups in terms of postoperative outcomes including the incidence of postoperative pain, infection, scarring, mouth opening and facial nerve injury. Data were statistically analysed using appropriate statistical tests.

Results: Out of the 21 patients studied, one patient in the extraoral group developed postoperative surgical site infection. There was a statistically significant difference in duration of surgery and postoperative mouth opening (p-value=0.006) and a highly significant difference in postoperative pain (p-value <0.001) and scar (p-value <0.001) between the two methods, proving transoral approach as effective method.

Conclusion: The transoral approach is a better approach for fixation and management of mandibular angle fractures, as compared to the extraoral approach.


Facial nerve, Intermaxillary fixation, Maxillofacial fractures, Occlusion

Mandibular fractures are known to represent 70% of all maxillofacial fractures and out of these, 26-35% are mandibular angle fractures (1),(2). The mandible due to their prominence, thin cross-sectional area and the presence of the third molar tooth is frequently involved in facial bone fractures especially, secondary to traumatic etiology (1),(2). The biomechanical consideration of the angle as a lever of the mandible helps us understand the reason for the displacement of the fractured segments of the angle of the mandible inferiorly due to a pull by the suprahyoid muscles and superiorly due to the muscles of mastication (3). This often mandates the need for open reduction and internal fixation which is usually done by three approaches namely transbuccal, extraoral and transoral approach (4).

The traditional approach employed was the extraoral approach wherein an incision is placed on the skin and the mini plates are secured on the outer aspect using screws (5). With this method, the visualisation and ease of plating were supposed to be better but at the cost of an unaesthetic scar, increased incidence of postoperative infection and marginal mandibular nerve palsy. As an alternative, the transoral approach was devised where the incision is placed on the oral mucosa/gingiva. This method is supposed to be associated with difficulties in visualisation and placement of the plate in an anatomically favourable position, with an aesthetically better scar and lesser incidences of postoperative infection and facial nerve palsy (4).

A previous study by kumar S et al., which compared both the treatment modalities mainly for ease of accessibility, time taken for surgery and difficulty level of fixation. No similar study was conducted in Mangalore, Karnataka, India. Hence, the present retrospective study was planned to assess and compare the transoral and extraoral approaches for the management of mandibular angle fractures in terms of postoperative outcome including the incidence of postoperative pain, infection, scarring, mouth opening and facial nerve injury in a tertiary care setup.

Material and Methods

This retrospective study was conducted in the Department of Plastic Surgery, Father Muller Medical College and Hospital, Mangalore, Karnataka, India. Patient data from January 2018 to December 2020 were chosen and were assessed between January 2019 to December 2021 after taking approval from Institutional Ethical Committee (IEC no FMIEC/CCM /457/2021).

Inclusion criteria: Patients aged >18 years, with either unilateral or bilateral mandibular angle fractures even if associated with other facial fractures were included in the study.

Exclusion criteria: Edentulous patients, immunocompromised patients, and patients in whom surgery was delayed for more than 10 days due to concomitant brain injury or haemodynamic instability were excluded from the study.

A total of 21 patients, out of which 12 patients underwent transoral approach and 9 patients underwent extraoral approach for management of mandibular angle fractures, within the study duration, were included in the study. Data was collected retrospectively from the Medical Records Department. The data collected includes demographic parameters like age, sex, clinical parameters like pain, scar, mouth opening, occlusion, signs of palsy and surgical details like type of approach, time for surgery, OPD follow-up records and periodic photograghs taken during subsequent follow-up visits.

Surgical Techniques

All patients were operated under general anaesthesia.

1. Extraoral approach: Risdon submandibular incision was placed 2-3 cm below lower mandibular border and the underlying platysma and cervical fascia were dissected taking care to preserve the marginal mandibular nerve. The bone with the fracture segment was then completely exposed after cutting the masseter below lower mandibular border and elevating the periosteum. The fractured bone fragments were then aligned and the mouth was occluded. Fixation was done with two plates 2.5 mm mini plate along the inferior border and a 2 mm miniplate along the mid mandible. Intermaxillary fixation was done intraoperatively for patients where satisfactory manual occlusion could not be achieved manually, which was released after fixation and occlusion was checked. Finally, the incision was closed in layers with absorbable sutures for the muscle and subcutaneous tissue and non absorbable sutures for the skin (5).
2. Transoral approach: A retromolar incision was placed extending to the first molar or premolar. Then dissection of the underlying tissue and periosteal stripping of muscles was done to expose the fracture segment adequately. Then fracture reduction was done and the mouth was maintained in occlusion either manually or with the help of intermaxillary fixation. After attaining proper occlusion fracture segment was fixed via unicortical fixation with 5 holes with a gap 2 mm plate system and 8/10 mm screws while taking care to mold the plate as per the body or ramus of the mandible. The plate was placed along Champy’s line of osteosynthesis (6). After fixation, intermaxillary fixation was released and occlusion was checked. Finally, the incision was closed in layers with absorbable sutures. Postoperatively, if there is no intermaxillary fixation, the patient can be asked to do mouth opening exercises and occlusive exercises which helps in early adaptation and reduces the chances of trismus. Oral intake of clear liquids was started from day 1 and the patients were discharged after four days and advised for a weekly follow-up.

The patient details are shown as in (Table/Fig 1),(Table/Fig 2) and (Table/Fig 1)a shows 3-dimensional (3D) Computed Tomography (CT) image from a case of multiple facial bone fractures with comminuted fracture of angle, (Table/Fig 1)b shows 3D CT post fixation by extraoral approach, (Table/Fig 2)a shows 3D CT image of a case with bilateral angle fracture as a result of road traffic accident and (Table/Fig 2)b Orthopantomogram (OPG) shows bilateral angle fracture fixed by intraoral approach.

All patients were examined for postoperative mouth opening, scar, infection, facial nerve injury, at each follow-up weekly for two weeks and biweekly till six weeks. Pain was assessed after one week of surgery. Evaluation of scarring was done with periodic photographs in the postoperative follow-up using vancouver scar scale (7). Pain was assessed using visual analog scale. House and Brackman classification was utilised for assessing marginal mandibular nerve function (8).

Statistical Analysis

Statistical Analysis was done using Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) software IBM SPSS statistics for Windows version 22.0 (IBM Corp., Armonk, N.Y., USA). The results are given using descriptive statistics like frequency, mean and percentages. Statistical significance was determined using Mann-Whitney U test and Chi-square test. A p-value <0.05 was considered statistically significant.


Twenty-one patients were studied out of which 17 (81%) were males and 4 (19%) were females. The age group ranged from 18-60 years with a mean age of 32.5±8.09 years. Out of the total patients studied 13 (61.9%) had isolated mandibular angle fractures and 8 (38.1%) patients had other associated facial bone fractures. The mean duration of surgery was 83.28±10.1 minutes.

In the present study, intermaxillary fixation was required in only 2 (9.5%) of the patients, as manual occlusion was difficult. In the rest of the patients (n=19), occlusion was attained by manual reduction during the surgery. All patients had preserved preoperative facial nerve function and none had any preoperative infection (Table/Fig 3).

Only one patient in the extraoral group developed postoperative surgical site infection which was managed conservatively with antibiotics and dressing (Table/Fig 4). Out of 21 patients, a scar was seen only in nine patients operated by extraoral approach. The mean postoperative scarring score was 8.11±1.76.

In the preoperative period, the patients experienced a higher degree of pain (7.52±1.07) and the extent of mouth opening was also less (22.66±3.65), due to the displaced bone fragments following the trauma. There was a greater degree of reduction in the pain (3.09±1.7) and increase in the mouth opening (39.28±4.76) after the displaced fragments were aligned postoperatively (Table/Fig 5). Maximum mouth opening was observed at 6th post operative week.

There was a statistically significant difference in duration of surgery and postoperative mouth opening and a highly significant difference in postoperative pain and scar between the two methods with the transoral method being better than the extraoral (Table/Fig 6).


The mandibular angle is subjected to opposite muscular forces between the muscles of mastication and the hyoid group of muscles which results in instability between the distal and proximal bony fragments (3). The fractures can be either anterior or posterior to the third molar tooth and the presence of the same further complicates the accuracy of fixation (3). Rigid internal fixation must attempt to neutralise all forms of opposing forces on the bone to allow adequate postoperative function while minimising complication rates and disability. The ideal approach in the management of mandibular angle fractures has been an ongoing debate with different schools of thought as to which method is to be chosen.

One of the dictum as concluded from previous studies stated that fracture lines anterior to the third molar tooth and ending at the anteroinferior border of insertion of masseter muscle can be approached intraorally as it gave better access and visualisation of fracture segments with optimal control of occlusion, ease of removing the third molar, lesser operative time and minimal tissue edema. On the other hand, the extraoral approach held good for fractures posterior to the third molar tooth and high in the ramus with an excellent direct visual exposure and achievement of a good anatomical contour and occlusion of the mandible (4).

Kazanjian VH popularised the extraoral approach as the traditional approach for fracture fixation and the advantages cited were that the visualisation of the fracture was better and theoretically provided a cleaner wound with a separation between the sterile skin and the contaminated oral cavity (9). Another advantage is the use of two mini plates however, these findings were refuted in studies by Ellis III E and Walker LR who advocated the use of a single superior border plating in the transoral approach being sufficient since the placement of a second plate involved increased periosteal stripping and bacterial contamination which increased rates of complications (6),(10),(11). Champy M et al., recommend single mini plate fixation on the superior border of the angle of the mandible (12).

In the present study with 21 patients, the mandibular angle fractures were seen with the peak incidence of fractures in the second and third decades of life with a definite predilection in males (n=17). Road traffic accident was the most common etiological factor and these findings were in unison with a study conducted by Kumar GBA et al., which reported the pattern of maxillofacial fractures in 2,731 patients (13).

Toma VS et al., performed a study in which it was reported that there was no statistically significant difference in the complication rates between the transoral and extraoral approaches although the transoral is a difficult approach for the fixation of mandibular angle fractures (14). Moreno JC et al., opined that the rates of complications were related to the severity of the fracture than to the approach of treatment used (15). The principal advantage of the transoral approach over the extraoral is the avoidance of an external unaesthetic scar which is also confirmed in our study, transoral had no visible scar v/s an average Vancouver score of 8.1/13 in the extraoral group. The surgical time is defined as the time taken from incision and exposure of the fractured site to closure and it was noted that the transoral approach had a shorter surgical time (mean=79 minutes) as compared to the extraoral approach (mean= 90 minutes). The transoral approach is better with lesser operating time, better access to the mandibular angle, less manipulation of the surrounding soft tissues and no aesthetic concern. Toma VS et al., stated that the postoperative infection could be attributed to the increased operation time in a contaminated field with greater manipulation of tissues which was also seen in the present study where one patient in the extraoral group developed postoperative surgical site infection (14). They also mentioned that infections are often due to improper oral hygiene (10). They were managed conservatively with antibiotics and daily wound dressings and did not require any additional surgical intervention.

There were no significant occlusion discrepancies in either group and both groups had similar mouth opening during the postoperative period. Patients attained their maximum mouth opening by the end of the 6th week postoperatively and this was achieved by regular and adequate mouth opening exercises. The pain assessment done using the visual analogue scale showed increased pain scores in the extraoral group (5.6/10) probably due to injury to the masseter muscles. The extraoral approach has an increased risk of damaging the branches of the facial nerve i.e the marginal mandibular nerve due to soft tissue retraction and dissection. However, no temporary or permanent facial nerve palsies were noted in the present study.


The major limitation of the study is small sample size. A study with a larger number of subjects would probably give a better insight into the pros and cons of the different surgical approaches used. The type of surgical approach usually depends on the preference of the operating surgeon which might lead to some bias in the study results.


The results of the present study found the transoral approach to be much simpler with shorter surgical duration, lesser number of postoperative complications, and minimal morbidity, patients also have an early masticatory function and shorter hospital stay. The transoral approach is more versatile with no risk of damage to the branches of the facial nerve or any visible external scar. Transoral approach also has much less intensity of pain postoperatively as compared to the extraoral approach. However, the extraoral approach provides better fixation in case of comminuted mandibular angle fracture. Further studies including more parameters and probably larger sample size can be taken up which can aid the surgeons in making an informed decision.


Authors would like to acknowledge the contribution of Dr. Aswini Dutt, Professor, Department of Physiology, Yenepoya Medical College, Mangalore for his contribution in proof reading the manuscript.


Kuriakose MA, Fardy M, Sirikumara M, Patton DW, Sugar AW. A comparative review of 266 mandibular fractures with internal fixation using rigid (AO/ASIF) plates or mini plates. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 1996;34:315-21. [crossref] [PubMed]
Rix L, Stevenson AR, Punia-Moorthy A. An analysis of 80 cases of mandibular fractures treated with mini plate osteosynthesis. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 1991;20:337-41. [crossref] [PubMed]
Fonseca RJ, Walter RV. 2 nd Ed. Vol.1. Pennsylvania: W.B. Saunders Company; 1997. Oral and Maxillofacial trauma; pp.474-78.
Sudhakar GVS, Rajasekhar G, Dhanala S, Vura N, Ramsetty S. Comparison of management of mandibular angle fractures by three approaches. J Maxillofac Oral Surg. 2015;14(4): 979-85. [crossref] [PubMed]
Devireddy SK, Kumar RVK, Akheel M. Transoral vs extraoral approach for mandibular angle fractures: A comparative study. Indian J Plastic Surg. 2014;47(3):354-61. [crossref] [PubMed]
Ellis III E, Walker LR. Treatment of mandibular angle fractures using one non- compression mini plate. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 1996;54(7):864-71. [crossref] [PubMed]
Fearmonti R, Bond J, Erdmann D, Levinson H. A review of scar scales and scar measuring devices. Eplasty. 2010;10:e43. PMID: 20596233; PMCID: PMC2890387.
Evans RA, Harries ML, Baguley DM, Moffat DA. Reliability of the House and Brackmann grading system for facial palsy. J Laryngol Otol. 1989;103(11):1045- 46. Doi: 10.1017/s002221510011093x. PMID: 2607201. [crossref] [PubMed]
Kazanjian VH. Treatment of automobile injuries of the face and jaws. JAMA. 1933;20(5):757-73. [crossref]
Ellis E 3 rd. Treatment methods for fractures of the mandibular angle. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 1999;28:243-52. [crossref]
Ellis E 3 rd, Walker L. Treatment of mandibular angle fractures using two non-compression mini plates. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 1994;52:1032-36. [crossref] [PubMed]
Champy M, Lodde JP, Schmitt R, Jaeger JH, Muster D. Mandibular osteosynthesis by miniature screwed plate via a buccal approach. J Maxillofac Surg. 1978;6:14-21. [crossref] [PubMed]
Kumar GBA, Dhupar V, Akkara F, Kumar SP. Patterns of maxillofacial fractures in Goa. Journal of Maxillofacial and Oral Surgery. 2013;14(2):138-41. [crossref] [PubMed]
Toma VS, Mathog RH, Toma RS, Meleca RJ. Transoral versus extra-oral reduction of mandibular fractures: A comparison of complication rates and other factors. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2003;128(2):215-19. [crossref] [PubMed]
Moreno JC, Fernández A, Ortiz JA, Montalvo JJ. Complication rates associated with different treatments for mandibular fractures. Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery. 2000;58(3):273-80.[crossref] [PubMed]

DOI and Others

DOI: 10.7860/JCDR/2023/59676.17482

Date of Submission: Aug 25, 2022
Date of Peer Review: Sep 14, 2022
Date of Acceptance: Jan 04, 2023
Date of Publishing: Feb 01, 2023

• Financial or Other Competing Interests: None
• Was Ethics Committee Approval obtained for this study? Yes
• Was informed consent obtained from the subjects involved in the study? No
• For any images presented appropriate consent has been obtained from the subjects. NA

• Plagiarism X-checker: Aug 28, 2022
• Manual Googling: Nov 30, 2022
• iThenticate Software: Jan 03, 2023 (13%)

ETYMOLOGY: Author Origin

JCDR is now Monthly and more widely Indexed .
  • Emerging Sources Citation Index (Web of Science, thomsonreuters)
  • Index Copernicus ICV 2017: 134.54
  • Academic Search Complete Database
  • Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ)
  • Embase
  • EBSCOhost
  • Google Scholar
  • HINARI Access to Research in Health Programme
  • Indian Science Abstracts (ISA)
  • Journal seek Database
  • Google
  • Popline (reproductive health literature)