AzTrials
AzTrials

Mandible FractureNCT07311239

Radiographic and Clinical Evaluation of Three-Dimensional Delta Plate in Internal Fixation of Mandibular Sub-condylar Fractures.

A study testing Three Dimensional Delta Plate in people with Mandible Fracture, run by Ain Shams University at 1 site in Egypt.

Completed

Finished. The study has ended and is not enrolling. Results may be posted on the official record.

Official record
Search all trials

Trial summary

In this study, we intend to examine the efficacy of 3D delta plates through radiographic evaluation of anatomic reduction and vertical ramus height as the main outcome and clinical assessment of pain and range of mandibular movements as secondary outcomes. Read more about this study

Who is it for?
Ages 18 years and older
Conditions the study is for
Mandible Fracture
What is being tested?
Three Dimensional Delta Plate
Type of treatment
Medical device
Could I receive a placebo?
No, everyone receives an active treatment
How many people
14 participants
Where
1 siteEgypt
Study dates
11 Nov 2024to 20 Oct 2025
Phase
Interventional
Are there results?
None posted in the registry

Key requirements

Who can take part, as listed by the sponsor. Only the study team can confirm whether you are eligible, so take this list to your doctor.

  • Ages 18 years and older
  • All sexes
  • No healthy volunteers
  • Adult, Older adult

Who may be able to join

  • Patients at or over 18 years.
  • Unilateral sub condylar fractures. -

Who cannot join

  • Bilateral sub condylar fractures
  • Pediatric patients.
  • Intracapsular fractures
  • Patients with Uncontrolled systematic conditions. -

Trial locations and contacts

1 site in 1 country.

Egypt1 site
  • Ain Shams University

    Cairo

Other trials in Egypt

About this study

In this study, we intend to examine the efficacy of 3D delta plates through radiographic evaluation of anatomic reduction and vertical ramus height as the main outcome and clinical assessment of pain and range of mandibular movements as secondary outcomes.

This Single arm longtudinal study will include 14 cases of trauma having mandibular sub condylar fractures, in which open reduction and internal fixation are indicated.

Read more

After selecting patients according to the inclusion criteria, all patients will undergo open reduction and rigid fixation.

Fracture will be stabilized using 4 hole, 2.0 mm 3-D Delta titanium plates using pre-auricular or retromandibular incision.

Radiographic evaluation using Computed Topograhy (CT) scans will be carried on immediatly after the operation then 3 months post operatively.

While, Clinical assessment will be performed at the following intervals after the surgery( 1 week, 1 month, 3 months)

Read the detailed description

The study was conducted on fourteen patients suffering from unilateral mandibular subcondylar fractures gathered from Ain Shams University Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Ahmed Maher Teaching Hospital and El-Bank El-Ahly Hospital for Integrated Care.

The used 3D plate is made of titanium, it is 1 mm thick, 20 mm long with a base measuring 14 mm and an apex measuring 5 mm. It has 4 holes (2 at the base and 2 at the top), where 2,00 mm screws can fit in.

The aim of this study is to evaluate the versatility of the three-dimensional delta plate in reduction and fixation of unilateral sub-condylar fractures. The results will be analyzed by radiographic assessment of proper anatomical reduction and measurement of vertical ramus height. In addition to, clinical outcomes of pain with jaw movements and measurement of all mandibular movements range.

Criteria of patients' selection :

Inclusion Criteria:

  1. Patients at or over 18 years.
  2. Unilateral sub condylar fractures indicated for treatment by open reduction and plate fixation according to valiati [55].

Exclusion Criteria:

  1. Bilateral sub condylar fractures
  2. Pediatric patients.
  3. Intracapsular fractures
  4. Patients with Uncontrolled systematic conditions.

Sample Size Calculation:

The sample size was estimated based on research published by Manoj et al. study (2015) regarding fracture fixation by trapezoidal 3D plate in India, by fixing alpha at 0.05 (5%) and beta at 0.05(5%), the minimal sample size is 10 patients to be included. To avoid drop out the sample was increased to 14 patients -Hypothesis: Delta plate doesn't provide an added advantage over the other Osteosynthesis methods of Sub condylar fixation.

Outcomes:

Primary outcomes: 1-Anatomic Reduction 2-Posterior Facial Height Secondary outcomes: 1-Pain 2-Mandibular Movements.

  • Primary assessment of the patient: 1- History:
  1. Personal History: Personal information was recorded for each patient, including name, age, sex, contact number, address, occupation, and marital status.
  2. Past Medical and Dental History: Relevant medical and dental history was documented, with particular attention to conditions that could influence treatment planning or pose risks during general anesthesia.
  3. History of Injury: Details regarding the injury were obtained from each patient, including the date and time of occurrence, any loss of consciousness at or following the event, the mechanism of injury, and the presence of any associated injuries
  4. Clinical Examination:
  5. General Condition on Admission: Airway patency and hemostasis were first ensured. The neurological status was assessed at presentation and categorized as clear, confused, or disoriented.
  6. Extraoral Examination:
  • Inspection: focused on identifying edema, ecchymosis, and gross deformity in regions suggestive of fracture. Associated soft-tissue injuries were documented, and the external auditory meatus was examined for evidence of blood or cerebrospinal fluid leakage.
  • Palpation: was conducted systematically from the condylar region along the entire mandibular border to detect tenderness, discontinuity of contour, or irregularity. In cases with suspected condylar fracture, digital palpation with the little finger in the external auditory meatus was employed to evaluate condylar head movement during mandibular excursions. Limitation of motion, pain, and localized tenderness were recorded, and neurosensory deficit of the lower lip, if present, was noted.
  1. Intraoral Examination:
  • Inspection: Saliva was examined for blood admixture. The buccal and lingual sulci were inspected for mucosal laceration, ecchymosis, or sublingual hematoma. Dental alignment was assessed, and mobility of individual teeth was documented. The occlusal plane was evaluated for step deformities suggestive of underlying fracture, and occlusion was examined for derangement or premature contact. Functional assessment of mandibular movements was performed to detect deviation, restriction, or pain.
  • Palpation: Bilateral palpation of the buccal and lingual sulci was undertaken to identify tenderness or step deformity. Finally, gentle bimanual manipulation of the mandible across suspected fracture sites was performed to elicit abnormal mobility. 3-Radiographic examination: Computed tomograms (multi slice C.Ts) with three dimensional reconstructed images were obtained for all the patients. Radiographic evaluation was undertaken with the following objectives:
  1. To localize and determine the number of radiolucent fracture lines, and to identify additional fractures involving the mandible and adjacent facial bones.
  2. To exclude the presence of pathological lesions or foreign bodies that could potentially interfere with treatment planning.
  3. To assess the position of the fractured condylar segment and classify the condylar fracture according to the system of Lindahl and Hollender (1977). Preoperative Records:
  4. Demographic Data: Patient identifiers including name, age, sex, occupation, time of injury, and etiology of trauma were documented.
  5. Radiographic Records: Multi slice computed tomography (CT) with three-dimensional reconstruction was obtained for classification of condylar fractures and detection of associated maxillofacial fractures.
  6. Clinical Records: <!-- -->
  7. Standardized occlusal (frontal, right and left views) were recorded.
  8. Maximum painless, non-assisted and assisted interincisal distance was measured to assess mouth opening.
  9. Temporomandibular joint (TMJ) examination was performed, documenting pain and tenderness 4. Anesthetic Evaluation: It includes medical and surgical history, physical examination, investigations, risk assessment, consent and pre-medications. 5.Antibiotic prophylaxis: No association was found between SSI and antibiotic prophylaxis for 24 hours or less vs 72 hours or more after OMF surgery. Treatment Phase: All patients were managed under general anesthesia by open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) for subcondylar fractures and associated mandibular or midfacial fractures. Surgical Procedure for Subcondylar Fracture:
  10. General anesthesia was administered via nasotracheal intubation.
  11. Arch bars or intermaxillary fixation (IMF) screws were applied preoperatively, and maxillomandibular fixation was established.
  12. A modified retromandibular incision was marked, In the modified retromandibular approach, the area in the middle of the buccal and marginal mandibular branch of the facial nerve is utilized for dissection, thereby ensuring the protection of the facial nerve and preventing additional morbidity. The resultant scar is inconspicuous and satisfactory to the patient as it is almost always concealed in the retromandibular shadow. [85]
  13. Local infiltration with adrenaline (1:100,000) was administered along the incision line for hemostasis.
  14. After sterile preparation and draping, the skin was incised. Subcutaneous dissection was performed superficial to the superficial muscular aponeurotic system (SMAS) in an anterosuperior direction using blunt and sharp techniques until the masseter muscle fibers were exposed.
  15. The facial nerve fibers, though not consistently visible, were preserved and protected during dissection through the deeper layers.
  16. The deeper muscle fibers beneath the facial nerve were transected to provide access to the fracture site.
  17. Once the bone surface was reached, the periosteum was elevated and the fracture identified. Reduction of the fracture segments was facilitated by releasing the IMF and mobilizing the distal segment caudally through intraoral pressure applied to the mandibular molars or by inserting a screw into the ramus and pulling the mandible downwards.
  18. Rigid fixation was achieved by osteosynthesis using 3D-Delta plate: <!-- -->
  19. The two superior arm holes of the 3D delta plate were fixed to the proximal segment with two 2.0 mm screws (9mm each) to assist in reduction and manipulation.
  20. The base of the plate was secured to the distal segment with two 2.0 mm screws (7mm each).
  21. Hemostasis was achieved, and the wound was closed in layers. 11. Heavy intermaxillary elastics were applied for three days postoperatively, followed by medium elastics for four days.
  22. In cases of midline deviation, guiding elastics were maintained for an additional week. Postoperative Phase Postoperative Care and Medications: •Amoxicillin with clavulanic acid 1.2 gm and Metronidazole 500 mg, IV, TID for one day.
  • Diclofenac potassium is administered (25 mg -50 mg oral or IV infusion) 1 to 4 times per day.
  • Dexamethasone 4-8mg IV every 8 hours for the first 24 hour .
  • Chlorhexidine mouthwash was prescribed three times daily for 10 days.
  • Oral hygiene instructions were explained to each patient.
  • A liquid and pureed diet was maintained during the period of maxillomandibular fixation (MMF), followed by a soft diet for 4 weeks after MMF removal.
  • Follow-up and Postoperative Records:

Radiographic follow-up was performed using computed tomography (CT) scans immediately postoperatively and at three-month intervals.

Clinical follow-up was initiated one week postoperatively, with subsequent evaluations performed at one month and three months postoperatively. At each visit, Pain score, postoperative occlusion, mandibular midline deviation, lateral and protrusive mandibular movements, and maximum opening was assessed. Any unexpected complications were also recorded.

Ethical Considerations:

  1. Open reduction and internal fixation of sub condylar fractures is accompanied with complications such as facial nerve injury, parotid gland fistula, permanent scar, infection, pain, edema, and difficulty in mastication following surgical procedure.
  2. Risk of Facial injury can be decreased by choosing the appropriate incision and meticulous dissection of the tissues.
  3. Parotid gland fistula is avoided by suturing of parotid capsule or by retroparotid retromandibular approach whenever possible.
  4. Permanent scar is best minimized by minimal tissue trauma, suturing in layers then the skin will be sutured by Prolene 6-0, Topical antibiotics and topical silicone gel will be prescribed.
  5. Post-operative analgesics and anti-inflammatory medications will be given to control pain and edema.
  6. Mastication force is enhanced by physiotherapy.
  7. Patients are allowed to withdraw from the trial whenever they want to. In this case, they will be surgically managed by conventional plating systems. All patients will be fully informed about the procedures. The risks and benefits will be thoroughly explained to them. No surgery will be performed without written consent.
  8. All personal information and data of the patients will be preserved, maintained and stored in a special filing system available in the department. It will not be exposed to anyone that is not included in the surgical team.

The research ethics committee, Faculty of Dentistry Ain Shams University, reviewed the research plan.

Being tested
Three Dimensional Delta Plate
Keywords
Open Reduction and Internal Fixation of unilateral sub condylar fractures of the mandible, sub condylar fractures, 3D Delta Plate
Medical subject headings
Mandibular Fractures

What participants receive

What participants receive. In a randomised study each person is assigned to one group by chance.

  • Three Dimensional Delta PlateDevice

    A 3D titanium plate designed with the following measurments: 1 mm thick, 20 mm long, 14 mm wide at the base, 5 mm wide at the apex. It has 4 holes where 2.00 mm screws can fit in.

Study groups in NCT07311239
Study groupRoleWhat they receive
14 patients recruited to the previously mentioned departmentsExperimentalNot described
Receives: Device: Three Dimensional Delta Plate

What is being measured

The primary outcome is the main question the study is designed to answer.

  1. posterior vertical height and anatomic reduction using CT

    Radiographic evaluation of posterior vertical height and anatomic reduction using CT

    Measured: 3 months

Timeline

From the start of the study to its completion; the mark is today. Estimated dates are the sponsor’s plan.

  1. First posted30 Dec 2025
  2. Study start11 Nov 2024
  3. Primary completion19 Jul 2025
  4. Study completion20 Oct 2025

Resources

More details

For doctors and researchers: how the study is designed, who runs it, and its registry IDs.

Study design
Study type
Interventional
Phase
Phase N/A
Primary purpose
Treatment
Allocation
Not applicable
Intervention model
Single group
Masking
None (open label)
Enrolment
14 participants (actual)
IDs, dates and publications
ClinicalTrials.gov ID
NCT07311239
Sponsor's protocol ID
1299
Status last verified
Nov 2024
First submitted
16 Nov 2025
Last updated
30 Dec 2025
Results posted
No
Data monitoring committee
Yes
FDA-regulated drug
No
FDA-regulated device
No
Individual data sharing
Undecided

Publications

  • Zachariades N, Mezitis M, Mourouzis C, Papadakis D, Spanou A. Fractures of the mandibular condyle: a review of 466 cases. Literature review, reflections on treatment and proposals. J Craniomaxillofac Surg. 2006 Oct;34(7):421-32. doi: 10.1016/j.jcms.2006.07.854. Epub 2006 Oct 19.

    PubMed 17055280
  • Kang DH. Surgical management of a mandible subcondylar fracture. Arch Plast Surg. 2012 Jul;39(4):284-90. doi: 10.5999/aps.2012.39.4.284. Epub 2012 Jul 13.

    PubMed 22872829
  • Ellis E 3rd, Throckmorton G. Facial symmetry after closed and open treatment of fractures of the mandibular condylar process. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2000 Jul;58(7):719-28; discussion 729-30. doi: 10.1053/joms.2000.7253.

    PubMed 10883686
  • Tandon S, Verma V, Rashid M, Srivastava S, Singh AK, Sharma NK. Is the facial nerve at risk following surgical correction of mandibular condylar fracture: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Natl J Maxillofac Surg. 2022 Aug;13(Suppl 1):S1-S10. doi: 10.4103/njms.njms_481_21. Epub 2022 Aug 20.

    PubMed 36393942
  • Nys M, Van Cleemput T, Dormaar JT, Politis C. Long-term Complications of Isolated and Combined Condylar Fractures: A Retrospective Study. Craniomaxillofac Trauma Reconstr. 2022 Sep;15(3):246-252. doi: 10.1177/19433875211026759. Epub 2021 Jun 23.

    PubMed 36081681
  • Moloro Michael, Ghali G.E., Larsen PE. Peterson's Principles of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery . fourth. 2022. 649-670 p

  • Kommers SC, Boffano P, Forouzanfar T. Consensus or controversy? The classification and treatment decision-making by 491 maxillofacial surgeons from around the world in three cases of a unilateral mandibular condyle fracture. J Craniomaxillofac Surg. 2015 Dec;43(10):1952-60. doi: 10.1016/j.jcms.2015.08.031. Epub 2015 Sep 9.

    PubMed 26498515
  • Singh V, Bhagol A, Goel M, Kumar I, Verma A. Outcomes of open versus closed treatment of mandibular subcondylar fractures: a prospective randomized study. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2010 Jun;68(6):1304-9. doi: 10.1016/j.joms.2010.01.001. Epub 2010 Apr 3.

    PubMed 20363548
  • Huang CM, Chan MY, Hsu JT, Su KC. Biomechanical analysis of subcondylar fracture fixation using miniplates at different positions and of different lengths. BMC Oral Health. 2021 Oct 21;21(1):543. doi: 10.1186/s12903-021-01905-5.

    PubMed 34674692
  • Ashor M, Salah A, Shindy M, Selim H, Metwaly S, Behairy G. Clinical and radiographic outcomes of rhomboid plate in management of subcondylar fractures: prospective randomized controlled trial. Egypt. J. Oral Maxillofac. surg. 2018 Jan 1;9(1):1-5.

  • Lauer G, Haim D, Proff P, Richter G, Pradel W, Fanghanel J, Pilling E, Gedrange T, Mai R. Plate osteosynthesis of the mandibular condyle. Ann Anat. 2007;189(4):412-7. doi: 10.1016/j.aanat.2007.02.021.

    PubMed 17696004
  • Albogha MH, Mori Y, Takahashi I. Three-dimensional titanium miniplates for fixation of subcondylar mandibular fractures: Comparison of five designs using patient-specific finite element analysis. J Craniomaxillofac Surg. 2018 Mar;46(3):391-397. doi: 10.1016/j.jcms.2017.12.020. Epub 2017 Dec 26.

    PubMed 29311022
  • Chaudhary M, Pant H, Singh M, Vashistha A, Kaur G. Evaluation of trapezoidal-shaped 3-D plates for internal fixation of mandibular subcondylar fractures in adults. J Oral Biol Craniofac Res. 2015 Sep-Dec;5(3):134-9. doi: 10.1016/j.jobcr.2015.07.005. Epub 2015 Aug 15.

    PubMed 26587378
  • Choi KY, Yang JD, Chung HY, Cho BC. Current concepts in the mandibular condyle fracture management part I: overview of condylar fracture. Arch Plast Surg. 2012 Jul;39(4):291-300. doi: 10.5999/aps.2012.39.4.291. Epub 2012 Jul 13.

    PubMed 22872830
  • Ahuja SA, Galinde J, Asnani U, Mistry YA. Comparative Evaluation of Clinical Outcomes Using Delta Plates and Conventional Miniplates for Internal Fixation of Mandibular Condylar Fractures in Adults. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2018 Jun;76(6):1255-1266. doi: 10.1016/j.joms.2017.12.018. Epub 2017 Dec 30.

    PubMed 29360455

Questions about this trial

What is this clinical trial studying?

A study testing Three Dimensional Delta Plate in people with Mandible Fracture, run by Ain Shams University at 1 site in Egypt.

The full registered description is in the About this study section and the official record.

Who may be eligible to take part?

The sponsor lists 2 inclusion and 4 exclusion criteria. Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening, so read the full criteria and contact a listed site.

Is this clinical trial currently recruiting?

The record says: finished, as of the sponsor's last update on 30 Dec 2025. Status can change between updates, so confirm with the study contact before making plans.

Where is the study taking place?

The record lists 1 site in Egypt. Whether a site is taking part right now should be confirmed with that site. See every site.

What are the possible benefits and risks?

They depend on the study and the treatment, and no study can promise a benefit. The study team explains the known risks during informed consent, before anyone joins; the record itself does not list them.

Are results available for this study?

The study is completed, but results are not available in the source record. That does not mean the treatment did or did not work.

How can a doctor refer a patient or contact the research team?

The record lists no contact. The official record names the sponsor, who can be asked directly. AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals.

What does the primary outcome measure?

posterior vertical height and anatomic reduction using CT (time frame: 3 months). It is what the study was designed to measure, not a finding.

Where can I read the original study information?

On the ClinicalTrials.gov record for NCT07311239, which also lists 18 linked publications.

Does a listing mean the treatment is approved or proven to work?

No. A listing means the study is registered. It does not show that the treatment is safe, works, or is approved by a regulator.

How often is this information updated?

AzTrials copies changed records from ClinicalTrials.gov every night and reloads the whole registry every week. The sponsor last updated this record on 30 Dec 2025.

Free account

Log in to keep searching

You’ve used your 3 free searches. AzTrials is free: log in or create a free account to keep searching clinical trials and save the ones you want to follow.

Create a free accountLog in