Comparative Study On Three Traumatic Scores For Mandibular Fracture Scores

Objective :The scores of the three kinds of trauma scoring methods for mandibular fracture injury were compared,and the statistical evaluation of the scores of the following mandibular injuries was analyzed.Methods:The medical records of 372 patients with mandibular fractures from January 2014 to December 2016 in the Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery,Second People’s Hospital of Kashi,Xinjiang were selected as subjects,and 372 patients(fracture time≤14 days)with mandibular fractures were analyzed.Three kinds of injury scores were used to score the MISS,MFISS and mandibular injury severity scores(S5).The results of the three scoring methods were compared and analyzed.Results:The ratio of male to female was 3.43:1;the minority patients accounted for 69.35%;the average age was 27.7±14.37 years;The frequency occurred between 20~30 years old.The frequent occurrence of mandibular fractures was June(15.59%);less frequent in January(5.11%).The most common cause of the fractures was traffic related(45.16%),followed by horse riding(19%).In the combined systemic injury,the brain was the most common(13.22%),followed by the limb injury(12.63%).The treatment method was the first choice for rigid internal fixation(90.59%),and 35 patients were treated conservatively(9.41%).The MISS method and the MFISS method could accurately differentiate single from multiple mandibular injuries.They were more meaningful for evaluating different sites of mandibular fractures compared with the mandibular injury severity score(S5)method.Conclusion:In this study,patients with mandibular fractures were more common in men,and the age of was young and middle-aged.The second and third quarters were frequent.The cause of trauma was generally traffic related,In the combined systemic injury,the brain was the most common.The first choice for treatment is rigid internal fixation.For mandibular fractures,the mandibular injury severity score(S5)method and the MISS and MFISS methods are less sensitive than the two scoring systems in distinguishing the number of fractures and the severity of injury at the evaluation site.