A retrospective study of 109 dogs with mandibular fractures

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.
• 2 Vashishth D. Small animal bone biomechanics. Bone 2008; 43: 794-797.
• 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.
• 4 Copcu E, Sisman N, Oztan Y. Trauma and fracture of the mandible. Eur J of Trauma 2004; 30: 110-115.
• 5 Umphlet RC, Johnson AL. Mandibular fractures in the dog. A retrospective study of 157 cases. J Vet Surg 1990; 19: 272-275.
• 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.
• 7 Glyde M, Lidbetter D. Management of fractures of the mandible in small animals. In Practice 2003; 570-585.
• 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.
• 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.
• 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.
• 11 Wong WT. A survey of fractures in the dog and cat in Malaysia. Vet Rec 1984; 115: 273-274.
• 12 Phillips IR. A survey of bone fractures in the dog and cat. J Small Anim Pract 1979; 20: 661-674.
• 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.
• 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.
• 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.
• 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.
• 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.
• 18 Overall KL, Love M. Dog bites to humans-demography, epidemiology, injury, and risk. J Am Vet Med Assoc 2001; 218: 1923-1934.
• 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.
• 20 Smith MM, Massoudi LM. Potential attachment area of the first mandibular molar in dogs. Am J Vet Res 1992; 53: 258-261.
• 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.
• 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.
• 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.
• 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.
• 25 Verstraete FJM. Maxillofacial fractures. In: Slatter DH. editor. Textbook of Small Animal Surgery. Philadelphia, PA: Saunders; 2003. pg. 2190-2207.