Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2012 Dec;5(4):213-22.
doi: 10.1055/s-0032-1322535. Epub 2012 Oct 18.

Global trends in maxillofacial fractures

Kai Lee  1
Affiliations

Global trends in maxillofacial fractures

Kai Lee. Craniomaxillofac Trauma Reconstr. 2012 Dec.

Abstract

Background The etiology, demographics, fracture site in facial injury patients have been reported worldwide. However, few studies have attempted to identify changes in maxillofacial fractures over time periods and between countries. The statistics are vastly different due to variations in social, environmental, and cultural factors. Methods Data were collected from departmental records between 1996 and 2006 for patients treated at Christchurch Hospital for facial fractures. Variables examined included incidence, demographics, site of fracture, and treatment methods. Results A total of 2563 patients presented during the study period, 1158 patients in the first half and 1404 patients in the second half. Male-to-female ratio was 4:1 in both periods and males in 16- to 30-year group accounted for about half of all patients. Interpersonal violence was the most common cause of injuries, and there was a decrease in injuries caused by motor vehicle accidents. Approximately half of all patients required hospitalization and surgery, and the most common method of treatment was open reduction and internal fixation. Conclusion Maxillofacial fracture is a common injury in young males following interpersonal violence in New Zealand. Studies in other countries and over different time periods yield interesting differences in the etiology, demographics, and fractures patterns. These are due to environmental, societal, cultural, and legislative differences.

Keywords: epidemiology; facial; fracture; maxillofacial; trend.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Yearly distribution of fractures.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Causes of injuries: first half. IPV, interpersonal violence; MVA, motor vehicle accident.
Figure 3
Figure 3
Causes of injuries: second half. IPV, interpersonal violence; MVA, motor vehicle accident.
Figure 4
Figure 4
Facial fracture distribution.
Figure 5
Figure 5
LeFort fracture distribution.
Figure 6
Figure 6
Mandibular fracture distribution.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Joy D, Probert R, Bisson J I, Shepherd J P. Posttraumatic stress reactions after injury. J Trauma. 2000;48:490–494. - PubMed
    1. Shepherd J. Victims of personal violence: the relevance of Symond's model of psychological response and loss theory. Br J Soc Work. 1990;20:309–332.
    1. Brasileiro B F, Passeri L A. Epidemiological analysis of maxillofacial fractures in Brazil: a 5-year prospective study. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod. 2006;102:28–34. - PubMed
    1. Haug R H, Prather J, Indresano A T. An epidemiologic survey of facial fractures and concomitant injuries. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 1990;48:926–932. - PubMed
    1. West P, Reeder A I, Milne B J, Poulton R. Worlds apart: a comparison between physical activities among youth in Glasgow, Scotland and Dunedin, New Zealand. Soc Sci Med. 2002;54:607–619. - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources