The Clinical Epidemiological Study Of 2492 Patients With Oral And Maxillofacial Trauma In Xinjiang

Objective: To analyze the clinical epidemiological characteristics of 2492 patients with oral and maxillofacial trauma in Xinjiang.Methods: The data of patients with oral and maxillofacial trauma who were treated in different hospitals were collected in Xinjiang from January 2012 to December 2016.The relevant informations in terms of age and gender location,cause of trauma,trauma types,fracture sites,combined injury and nerve injury of each patient were analyzed retrospectively.Results: 2492 cases were collected,the ratio of males to females was 3.88:1.Among the all group 21-30 years was high incidence age.In terms of occupational distribution,farmers are the most,accounting for 44.3%;Also,traffic accidents are the main causes of trauma,accounting for41.8%.There were 932 cases(37.4%)with multiple fractures,826 patients(33.2%)suffered from simple soft tissue injury,of which 532 were buccal(12.2%),followed by514 periorbital soft tissues(11.8%)and 487 oral mucosa(11.2%).The most common fracture site was mandible fracture(31.97%),followed by zygomatic fracture(25.3%).The most common concomitant injuries were limb in3juries(27.5%),followed by craniocerebral(24.5%)and eye(21.4%).There were 124 cases with nerve injuries,including facial nerve injuries in 78 cases,accounting for 62.9%.There were 2460 cases with facial deformity,98.7% of total patients;900 cases with 36.1% had the occlusion disorder.Conclusion: Incidence rate of oral and maxillofacial trauma is related to many factors,such as gender,age,and the cause of trauma.Young adults are the most common group(P<0.05).Maxillofacial trauma is often associated with limb,craniocerebral and eye injuries.The main causes of maxillofacial injuries were traffic accidents(P< 0.05).According to the analysis of the risk factors of oral and maxillofacial trauma,different trauma causes were the common risk factors of maxillofacial soft tissue injury and maxillofacial fracture,and the risk degrees was significantly different(OR>1,P < 0.05).