PDF herunterladen
Vet Comp Orthop Traumatol 2013; 26(01): 01-05
DOI: 10.3415/VCOT-12-01-0003
Original Research
Schattauer GmbH

A retrospective study of 109 dogs with mandibular fractures

A. M. Kitshoff
1   Section Small Animal Surgery, Department of Companion Animal Clinical Studies, Faculty of Veterinary Science, University of Pretoria, Onderstepoort, South Africa
2   Department of Small Animal Medicine and Clinical Biology, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Ghent University, Merelbeke, Belgium
,
H. de Rooster
1   Section Small Animal Surgery, Department of Companion Animal Clinical Studies, Faculty of Veterinary Science, University of Pretoria, Onderstepoort, South Africa
,
S. M. Ferreira
3   Savanna Research Unit, Scientific Services, Conservation Services Division, South African National Parks, Skukuza, South Africa
,
G. Steenkamp
4   Maxillofacial Surgery and Dentistry Clinic, Section Small Animal Surgery, Department Companion Animal Clinical Studies, Faculty of Veterinary Science, University of Pretoria, Onderstepoort, South Africa
› Institutsangaben
Weitere Informationen

Publikationsverlauf

Received 04. Januar 2012

Accepted 05. Juli 2012

Publikationsdatum:
19. Dezember 2017 (online)

Auch verfügbar auf
    Lizenzen und Reprints

Summary

Objective: To determine patient factors and fracture morphology of dogs presented with mandibular fractures to a small animal referral centre in South Africa.

Methods: Patient data on age, sex, breed and aetiology of dogs with mandibular fractures were recorded. The fractures were classified according to the anatomical location, displacement, fracture type, fracture line direction, periodontal pathology, and whether there were teeth in the fracture line or not by evaluation of preoperative radiographs. Clinical observations indicated whether these fractures were open or closed.

Results: In total, 109 dogs with 135 mandibular fractures were included in the study. Small breed dogs and dogs less than eight months of age predominated (102/109). Dog fights were the most common aetiology in this study (68/109). The molar region was the most commonly affected region (56/135). Evaluation of the radiographs revealed that transverse (73/135), relatively unstable (116/135), and displaced (112/135) fractures were the most common. The majority of fractures involved teeth in the fracture line (100/135), with the first molar frequently involved (54/135). The majority of fractures were open (104/135).

Clinical significance: The results obtained from this study may be used to guide patient and fracture morphology selection in biomechanical studies of mandibular fracture repair techniques. Screening of this patient population may inspire the search for new treatment options for mandibular fracture repair in South Africa.

Keywords

Mandibular - fracture - Classification - molar - open fracture - small breed.

 

  • References

  • 1 Doblaré M, García JM, Gómez MJ. Modelling bone tissue fracture and healing: a review. Eng Frac Mech 2004; 71: 1809-1840.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Vashishth D. Small animal bone biomechanics. Bone 2008; 43: 794-797.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Piermattei DL, Flo GL, DeCamp CE. Fractures and luxations of the mandible and maxilla. In: Brinker, Piermattei, and Flo's Handbook of Small Animal Orthopedics and Fracture Repair. St. Louis, Mo.: Elsevier Saunders; 2006. pg. 717-736.
    Google Scholar
  • 4 Copcu E, Sisman N, Oztan Y. Trauma and fracture of the mandible. Eur J of Trauma 2004; 30: 110-115.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Umphlet RC, Johnson AL. Mandibular fractures in the dog. A retrospective study of 157 cases. J Vet Surg 1990; 19: 272-275.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Lopes FM, Gioso MA, Ferro DG. et al. Oral fractures in dogs of Brazil--a retrospective study. J Vet Dent 2005; 22: 86-90.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Glyde M, Lidbetter D. Management of fractures of the mandible in small animals. In Practice 2003; 570-585.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Vertstraete FJM. Maxillofacial fractures. In: Holmstrom SE, Frost P, Eisner ER. editors. Veterinary Dental Techniques for the Small Animal Practitioner. Philadelphia: W.B. Saunders; 2004. pg. 559-600.
    Google Scholar
  • 9 McAllister H, Tobin E. Long bones- fractures. In: Barr F, Kirberger R. editors. BSAVA Manual of Canine and Feline Musculoskeletal Imaging. Cheltenham: British Small Animal Veterinary Association; 2006; pg. 49-70.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Buitrago-Téllez CH, Audigé L, Strong B. et al. A comprehensive classification of mandibular fractures: a preliminary agreement validation study. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2008; 37: 1080-1088.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Wong WT. A survey of fractures in the dog and cat in Malaysia. Vet Rec 1984; 115: 273-274.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Phillips IR. A survey of bone fractures in the dog and cat. J Small Anim Pract 1979; 20: 661-674.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Shamir MH, Leisner S, Klement E. et al. Dog bite wounds in dogs and cats: a retrospective study of 196 cases. J of Vet Med 2002; 49: 107-112.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Ellis JL, Thomason J, Kebreab E. et al. Cranial dimensions and forces of biting in the domestic dog. J Anat 2009; 214: 362-373.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Lorinson K, Loebcke S, Skalicky M. et al. Signalment differences in bone mineral content and bone mineral density in canine appendicular bones. A cadaveric study. Vet Comp Orthop Traumatol 2008; 21: 147-151.
    Artikel in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Pietrzak WS, Sarver DR, Kohn DH. Fatigue testing of bioabsorbable screws in a synthetic bone substrate. In: An YH, Draughn RA. editors. Mechanical Testing of Bone and the Bone-Implant Interface. Washington: CRC press; 1999; pg. 581-91.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Hopkins SG, Schubert TA, Hart BL. Castration of adult male dogs: effects on roaming, aggression, urine marking and mounting.. J Am Vet Med Assoc 1976; 168: 1108-1110.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Overall KL, Love M. Dog bites to humans-demography, epidemiology, injury, and risk. J Am Vet Med Assoc 2001; 218: 1923-1934.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Erikson T. Physical orodental conditions. In: Tutt C, Deeprose J, Crossley DA. editors. BSAVA Manual of Canine and Feline Dentistry. Cheltenham: British Small Animal Veterinary Association; 2007. pg. 148-159.
    Google Scholar
  • 20 Smith MM, Massoudi LM. Potential attachment area of the first mandibular molar in dogs. Am J Vet Res 1992; 53: 258-261.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Gioso MA, Shofer F, Barros PS. et al. Mandible and mandibular first molar tooth measurements in dogs: relationship of radiographic height to body weight. J Vet Dent 2001; 18: 65-68.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Huja SS, Rummel AM, Beck FM. Changes in mechanical properties of bone within the mandibular condyle with age. J of Morph 2008; 269: 138-143.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Vollmerhaus B, Roos H. The transverse movement of the temporo-mandibular joint (translation movement) of the dog, also with reference to dysplasia of this joint in the dachshund. Anat Histol Embryol 1996; 25: 145-149.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Scott HW. The skull and mandible. In: Coughlan AR, Miller A. editors. BSAVA Manual of Small Animal Fracture Repair and Management. Cheltenham: British Small Animal Veterinary Association; 1998. pg. 115-129.
    Google Scholar
  • 25 Verstraete FJM. Maxillofacial fractures. In: Slatter DH. editor. Textbook of Small Animal Surgery. Philadelphia, PA: Saunders; 2003. pg. 2190-2207.
    Google Scholar