Skip to main content
. 2008 Nov;1(1):31–38. doi: 10.1055/s-0028-1098961

Table 1.

Summary of Ellis's Clinical Investigations of Mandibular Angle Fracture Fixation Techniques

Investigation Patient Population Fixation Technique Results
Passeri LA, Ellis E, Sinn DP (1993)7 96 patients with 99 fractures managed over 3-y Closed reduction with maxillomandibular fixation, or nonrigid means of fixation 17% infection only, 4% combination of infection, nonunion, and malocclusion
Ellis E 3rd, Ghali G (1991)2 30 patients managed over 1-y Single 2.7-mm lag screw technique 27% additional fixation, 23% infection/bone exposure, 7% occlusal discrepancies
Ellis E 3rd, Karas N (1992)3 30 patients with 31 fractures Two 2-mm four-hole minidynamic compression plates 30% total complication rate; swelling and low-grade infection requiring plate removal (17%), early infection (10%), nonunion with malocclusion (3%)
Ellis E 3rd (1993)1 52 patients with 52 fractures over 2-y 2.7-mm reconstruction plate 8% postoperative malocclusion and 8% postoperative infection
Ellis E 3rd, Sinn DP (1993)4 65 consecutive patients Two 2.4-mm dynamic compression plates 32% infections, 32% hardware removal, 18% nonunion, 2% nonunion with malocclusion
Ellis E 3rd, Walker LR (1994)5 67 consecutive patients with 69 fractures Two 2-mm noncompression miniplates (self-tapping screws) 28% total complications. 25% infections, 23% hardware removal, 7% delayed union, 1% nonunion.
Ellis E 3rd, Walker LR (1996)6 81 patients treated over 2-y period One 2-mm four-hole superior border noncompression miniplate (self-tapping screws) 16% infection, 1% infection and fibrous union
Potter J, Ellis E 3rd (1999)8 46 patients with 51 fractures over 2-y One seven-hole, thin, malleable miniplate secured with six 1.3-mm self-tapping screws 15% total infections, 6% minor infections,11% plate fracture, 4% requiring additional fixation