Comparison Of Pre-adjusted 3D Plating System Employing 3D Printing Verses Conventional 3D Plating In The Management Of Mandibular Fractures â?? A Controlled Prospective Double Blind Study.

Ashish Sarda0 sites20 target enrollmentTBD

Overview

Phase: Phase 4
Intervention: Not specified
Conditions: Health Condition 1: T79- Certain early complications of trauma, not elsewhere classified
Sponsor: Ashish Sarda
Enrollment: 20
Status: Completed
Last Updated: 4 years ago

No summary available.

Registry

who.int

Start Date

TBD

End Date

October 16, 2020

Last Updated

4 years ago

Study Type

Interventional

Sponsor

Ashish Sarda

•1\)Patients who are willing to participate in the study.
•2\)Patients with no significant medical history.
•3\)Patients with unilateral and/or bilateral fracture present on symphyses, parasymphyses or angle of mandible region.
•4\)Patients having favourable fractures and willing for open reduction and internal fixation
•5\)Patient with fracture in the body of mandible region where 3D miniplate can be applied \& where vital structures will not cause any interference.

•1\)Patients not willing for participation in the study
•2\)Patient having history of any systemic diseases.
•3\)Pregnant and lactating patient.
•4\)Patients with condylar/subcondylar/coronoid fractures.
•5\)Patients with fracture in body of mandible where 3D plate can not be applied due to vital structures.
•6\)Patients present with severe comminuted fractures.
•7\)Patients with fractures presenting with severe soft tissue loss.
•8\)Patient not willing for open reduction.
•9\)Patients with craniomaxillofacial fractures.