• Users Online: 40
  • Print this page
  • Email this page
Year : 2021  |  Volume : 5  |  Issue : 1  |  Page : 24-27

A retrospective study to ascertain the need for hardware removal following orthognathic surgery

1 Department of Dentistry, NSCB Government Medical College, Jabalpur, Madhya Pradesh, India
2 Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, SGT University, Gurugram, Haryana, India
3 Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Chandra Dental College and Hospital, Barabanki, Uttar Pradesh, India
4 Senior Resident, Department of Dentistry, NSCB Medical College, Jabalpur, Madhya Pradesh, India
5 Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Narsinbhai Patel Dental College and Hospital, Sankalchand Patel University, Visnagar, Gujarat, India

Correspondence Address:
Pranav Parashar
Professor & HOD, Department of Dentistry, N.S.C.B Government Medical College, Jabalpur, Madhya Pradesh
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None

DOI: 10.4103/SDJ.SDJ_49_20

Rights and Permissions

Background: The concept of rigid fixation following surgical interventions in the maxillofacial region is in use since the 1970s. The presence of oral native bacteria in addition to the occlusal forces acting on the plates during mastication results in few complications following rigid fixation which would eventually lead to their retrieval. Objective: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the need for hardware removal in the postoperative phase following orthognathic surgery. Methods: This retrospective study encompassed 86 patients who underwent orthognathic surgery for the correction of their dentofacial deformities in a single hospital unit between July 2009 and October 2019. A total of 314 stainless steel miniplates were used for achieving osteosynthesis in 86 patients. The primary outcome variable in this study was hardware removal. Secondary outcome variables included the reason for hardware removal and the duration between the time of placement of the hardware and its removal. The verdict on whether to postoperatively retrieve plates was based on plate exposure, infection, and patient discomfort caused by the palpability of the plate. Results: Out of the 86 patients (314 plates), 36 patients underwent Le Fort I osteotomy, harboring 144 plates; eight patients underwent anterior maxillary osteotomy, harboring 16 plates; 47 patients underwent bilateral sagittal split osteotomy, harboring 94 plates; and 30 patients underwent genioplasty, harboring 60 plates. It was observed that hardware was retrieved from 24 patients (27.90%) only due to palpability. Among the patients from whom the hardware was removed as a result of complications, 41 patients (47.67%) developed an infection in the postoperative phase, 15 patients (17.44%) had exposed hardware, and six patients (6.97%) developed an inflammatory reaction as a result of a loose screw that necessitated the removal of the hardware. Conclusion: Based on the results of this study, it can be concluded that hardware removal is essential following orthognathic surgery in the late postoperative phase. Hence, following confirmation of optimal postoperative osseous healing, patients should be educated about the need for hardware retrieval and the significance of postoperative follow-up.

Print this article     Email this article
 Next article
 Previous article
 Table of Contents

 Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
 Citation Manager
 Access Statistics
 Reader Comments
 Email Alert *
 Add to My List *
 * Requires registration (Free)

 Article Access Statistics
    PDF Downloaded137    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal