- Email: [email protected]
Aetiology of maxillofacial fractures: a review of published studies during the last 30 years
Available online at www.sciencedirect.com
British Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery 52 (2014) 901–906
Review
Aetiology of maxillofacial fractures: a review of published studies during the last 30 years Paolo Boffano ∗ , Sofie C. Kommers, K. Hakki Karagozoglu, Tymour Forouzanfar Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery/Pathology, VU University Medical Center and Academic Centre for Dentistry Amsterdam (ACTA), P.O. Box 7057, 1007 MB Amsterdam, The Netherlands Accepted 14 August 2014 Available online 15 September 2014
Abstract The epidemiology of facial trauma may vary widely across countries (and even within the same country), and is dependent on several cultural and socioeconomic factors. We know of few reviews of published reports that have considered the sex distribution and aetiology of maxillofacial trauma throughout the world. The aim of this review was to discuss these aspects as they have been presented in papers published during the last 30 years. We made a systematic review of papers about the epidemiology of maxillofacial trauma that were published between January 1980 and December 2013 and identified 69 studies from Africa (n=9), North America and Brazil (n=6), Asia (n=36), Europe (n=16), and Oceania (n=2). In all the studies men outnumbered women, the ratio usually being more than 2:1. In American, African, and Asian studies road traffic crashes were the predominant cause. In European studies the aetiology varied, with assaults and road traffic crashes being the most important factors. In Oceania assaults were the most important. A comparison of the incidence of maxillofacial trauma of different countries together with a knowledge of different laws (seat belts for drivers, helmets for motocyclists, speed limits, and protection worn during sports and at work) is crucial to allow for improvement in several countries. To our knowledge this paper is the first attempt to study and compare the aetiologies of maxillofacial trauma. © 2014 The British Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Maxillofacial trauma; Maxillofacial; Facial; Fracture; Etiology; Cause; Mechanism; Epidemiology
Introduction Maxillofacial injuries are a serious public health and economic problem, as their treatment, and time spent in hospital and off work, is expensive. They are also often associated with severe morbidity, disfigurement, and psychological problems.1–69 Their epidemiology may vary widely from country to country (and even within the same country), and it is dependent on several factors, including culture, socioeconomic background, and population density.9,28,30,33,38,46
∗ Corresponding author. Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery/Pathology, VU University Medical Center and Academic Centre for Dentistry Amsterdam (ACTA), P.O. Box 7057, 1007 MB Amsterdam, The Netherlands. E-mail address: [email protected] (P. Boffano).
First, the populations in urban and rural environments differ in density and infrastructure. The incidence of road traffic crashes may depend on: increases in the volume of traffic, a substantial rural to urban drift of the productive segment of the population, deteriorating infrastructure such as roads, road building programmes, widespread use of second-hand vehicles, young people driving illegally, young children travelling as front seat passengers without restraint, driving under the influence of alcohol, and non-compliance with legislation about seatbelts and crash helmets.6,12,25–27,30,38 However, enforcement of legislation about seat belts and crash helmets, measures for speed control, restrictions about driving under the influence of alcohol, the use of surveillance cameras in the streets, the development of subways, and the control of heavy wagons, can reduce the number of road traffic crashes.6,12,25–27,30,38
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.bjoms.2014.08.007 0266-4356/© 2014 The British Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
902
P. Boffano et al. / British Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery 52 (2014) 901–906
Since the implementation of programmes to reduce road traffic crashes and apply restraints in some countries, the ease of acquiring weapons and increasingly aggressive behaviour in urban centres have led to a rise in the number of assaults, and replaced road crashes as the leading cause of maxillofacial injuries.12 The change in assault weapons, with fists or heavy articles being replaced by knives or other sharp weapons, may affect the number of facial injuries.25 The discrepancy in assault-related facial injury may also depend on differences in social customs and alcohol intake, and some specific religious practices or social habits may limit or forbid the drinking of alcohol.20 Excessive consumption is strongly associated with assaults, as it impairs judgement, encourages aggression, and often leads to interpersonal violence.9 The strictness of laws governing the sale and consumption of alcohol in some countries may have effectively prevented alcohol-related injuries in some countries.9 Finally, it is important to remember that turbulent political transition in a country may generate a certain insubordination by part of the population and increase the rate of assaults.60 Social and cultural factors are crucial in sports injuries, as the popularity of contact sports such as rugby or boxing can dramatically increase the rate of sport-related maxillofacial injuries.38 The rate of accidents at work also differs from country to country and even within the same country, as specific categories of worker are at higher risk of facial injury (such as construction and forestry workers).38 In these cases, enforcement of work protection legislation is fundamental. In some countries men usually work outdoors and women are mainly confined to the house or work as teachers, nurses, and doctors, and only few of them drive cars.26,38 This has resulted in an increase in the male:female ratio in several countries.26,38 In countries where women participate directly in social activities and consequently are more susceptible to traffic crashes and urban violence, the ratio of men:women with maxillofacial injuries can be much lower.12 The more active lifestyles, increased life expectancy, and a general increase in the number of elderly people also play a part in the increase in the age of people with such injuries.25 Thorough knowledge and understanding of the aetiology and epidemiology of facial injuries is fundamental for the development of health services, the training of maxillofacial surgeons, and the adoption of new methods of preventing injuries. The aim of this paper, therefore, was to review and discuss papers that were published during the past 30 years about the distribution and aetiology of facial injuries throughout the world.
Material and methods We systematically reviewed all papers that were published in English between January 1980 and December 2013 using MEDLINE and the MeSH term “facial fractures” together
with the terms “review”, “‘epidemiology”, and “aetiology”. Twelve papers in other languages were excluded. Papers that presented complete data about the sex distribution and aetiology of the groups studied were identified and included. Those that gave epidemiological data only about specific groups or specific conditions (such as children, old people, and military exercises) were excluded, as well as those that recorded only specific maxillofacial trauma such as injuries to the mandible alone. Data were collected on sex distribution and aetiology, and summarised in tables according to continents. Papers were classified according to the size of the sample, for which they were rated A (n=1000 or more), B (n=200999), or C (n=<200), and the design, for which they were rated 1 (prospective) or 2 (retrospective).
Results A total of 69 studies were identified from Africa (n=9), from North America and Brazil (n=6), from Asia (n=36), from Europe (n=16), and from Oceania (n=2) (Tables 1–5). Only 6 paperss1,11,12,40,56,59 were rated A1 according to our classification. The others were classified as A2 (n=18), B1 (n=4), B2 (n=29), C1 (n=5), and C2 (n=7). In all studies men outnumbered women, the male:female ratio usually being more than 2:1. In African studies most showed a male:female ratio of 4:1 or more (Table 1), but the trend during the last 30 years has shown a slight decrease with an adjustment towards 4/5:1. With few exceptions African studies showed that in most cases road traffic crashes have remained the most important aetiological factor, with a progressive reduction during the last 20 years. Assault was the second most common cause of maxillofacial injury in several papers, whereas falls and sport accidents were more sporadic. In North America and Brazil (Table 2), male:female ratios were between 2:1 and 4.3:1 and tended to stabilise during the last 3 decades. Road traffic crashes were the most important cause in almost all studies and the number remained stable, followed by assaults, the incidence of which progressively increased. Papers from Asia included most of the epidemiological studies (Table 3). Male:female ratios were extremely variable, and ranged from 2.1:1 to 20:1, but no solid trend was apparent across the last 30 years, partly because of the great social and economic differences among the countries. However, there was a predominance of road traffic crashes in nearly all studies, with percentages of over 45% – 50% even during recent years. Only two studies presented assaults as the most important aetiological factor.22,29 Falls remained a common cause in all countries, with percentages often higher than 20%. In Europe the male:female ratios ranged between 1.8:1 and 6.6:1 and remained stable across the last 3 decades (Table 4).
P. Boffano et al. / British Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery 52 (2014) 901–906
903
Table 1 Aetiology of maxillofacial fractures in Africa. First author
Adekeye1 Abiose2 Khan3 Ugboko4 Olasoji5 Adebayo6 Schaftenaar7 Hassan8 Chalya9 ∗
Year
1980 1986 1988 1998 2002 2003 2009 2010 2011
Time period
1973 – 1978 1982 – 1984 1985 – 1986 1982 – 1995 1996 – 1999 1991 – 2000 2001 – 2007 2008 – 2009
Country
Nigeria Nigeria Zimbabwe Nigeria Nigeria Nigeria Tanzania Egypt Tanzania
No of patients
1447 104 311 442 206 443 532 255 154
M:F ratio 16.9:1 72.7 5.5:1 4.3:1 4.1:1 2.19:1 4.7:1 4.3:1 5.5:1 2.7:1
Causes (%) Road crashes
Assault
Falls
Sport
Other
80.8 14.8 71.9 36 56 42.3 54 57.1
12.7 13.5 81.6 8.4 48 13 39.1 9.4 16.2
7.9 1.9 10.9 9 24 6.6 14.3
1.3 1.9 3.6 3.2 4 5 4.9 2.6
5.3 1.9 5.6 3 3 7.1 36.5* 9.7
Activities of daily life and accidents + other cause.
The aetiology was extremely variable, in that in several studies road traffic crashes were the most common cause, whereas in 5 assaults were the most common cause. There was also a progressively increasing trend in the incidence of falls, whereas sport accidents were the cause in more than 10% of facial trauma overall. Finally, in Oceania the male:female ratio was 4:1 (Table 5), with assaults as the most important cause of maxillofacial injuries, followed by road crashes.
Discussion Knowledge about the epidemiology of maxillofacial trauma is fundamental for every maxillofacial surgeon and for all national health systems, and thanks to a thorough knowledge of the mechanisms of injuries, preventive measures can be introduced. The male:female ratio is an important variable. In all studies men outnumbered women with the male:female ratio usually above 2:1. Several studies did not give it in the different aetiological categories, but the information would be valuable. On the whole, lower male:female ratios were quoted in papers from Europe and North America and Brazil, whereas papers from Asia and Africa reported the highest ratios. Road traffic crashes remain the most important cause of maxillofacial trauma all over the world, although there was a progressively decreasing trend, particularly in North America and Brazil, and Europe. In these continents, assaults and falls have become more important, probably as a result of
more severe traffic laws and the consequent reduction in road traffic crashes in general. The general ageing of the European population may also play a part in the increase of falls. Sport accidents remain relatively rare all over the world with the exception of Europe, where they cause more than 10% of facial trauma. We found a wide variation in aetiology between studies from the same country, even during the same period of time. Of course this can be explained by the different social groups that used the particular hospital or trauma centre being studied. A hospital may be a tertiary centre for a mostly rural or urban population, which would reflect a different pattern of work. Rates of criminal behaviour may differ from town to town, which would give a different role to assault as an aetiological factor for maxillofacial injuries. In some countries (such as North America) maxillofacial fractures are treated by multiple specialty services and without a uniform system of trauma centres, so there may be bias in the reports of aetiologies. It is almost impossible therefore to compare data from groups of injured patients statistically, even within the same country. However, there may be a general pattern of aetiological factors shown by assessment of this analysis and of eventual future prospective studies, keeping in mind that laws, drinking habits, standards of roads, types of work, and other conditions can vary even in the same country. For this reason this study has several biases and limitations, but to our knowledge it is the first complete review of the epidemiology of maxillofacial trauma. The most important biases include the difference in classifications of some causes of injury, such as accidents at work. This category
Table 2 Aetiology of maxillofacial fractures in North America and Brazil. First author
Year
Time period
Country
No of patients
M:Fratio
Vetter10 Hogg11 Brasileiro12 Erdmann13 De Souza Maliska14 Smith e15
1991 2000 2006 2008 2009 2012
1986 – 1988 1992 – 1997 1999 – 2004 2003 – 2005 2002 – 2006 2008 – 2009
USA Canada Brazil USA Brazil USA
311 2969 1024 437 132 154
2.8:1 3:1 4:1 2.5:1 4.3:1 2:1
Causes (%) Road crashes
Assault
Falls
Sport
Other
40 70 45 32 48.4 47
37 8 23 36 36.4 -
12 12 18 18 9.8 25
9 8 11 -
2 11 6 3 5.4 28
904
P. Boffano et al. / British Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery 52 (2014) 901–906
Table 3 Aetiology of maxillofacial fractures in Asia. First author
Nair16 Karyouti17 Sawhney18 Tanaka19 Bataineh20 Iida21 Aksoy22 Klenk23 Motamedi24 Ansari25 Al Ahmed26 Erol27 Cheema28 Kadkhodaie29 Al-Khateeb30 Subhashraj31 Sasaki32 Abbas33 Ozkaya34 Lee35 Venugopal36 Hashim37 Gandhi38 Mesgarzadeh39 Zandi40 Kamath41 Naveen Shankar42 Kapoor43 Singh44 Kar and Mahavoi45 Abdullah et al46 Almasri47 Bali et al48 Jin et al49 Mijiti et al50 Zhou et al51
Year
1986 1987 1988 1994 1998 2001 2002 2003 2003 2004 2004 2004 2006 2006 2007 2007 2009 2009 2009 2010 2010 2011 2011 2011 2011 2012 2012 2012 2012 2012 2013 2013 2013 2013 2013 2013
Time period
1982 – 1983 1981 – 1983 1982 – 1983 1977 – 1989 1992 – 1997 1981 – 1996 1994 – 2001 1998 – 2001 1996 – 2001 1987 – 2001 1999 – 2002 1978 – 2002 2001 – 2002 2001 – 2004 1995 – 2003 1999 – 2005 2000 – 2004 2001 – 2007 2000 – 2005 2003 – 2007 2004 – 2008 2007 – 2008 2006 – 2009 2001 – 2006 2007 – 2009 2004 – 2009 2000 – 2005 2008 – 2009 2006 – 2011 2004 – 2009 2007 – 2011 2010 – 2011 2003 – 2010 2008 2006 – 2010 2000 – 2009
Country
No of patients
India Jordan India Japan Jordan Japan Turkey United Arab Emirates Iran Iran United Arab Emirates Turkey Pakistan Iran United Arab Emirates India Japan Pakistan Turkey Republic of Korea India Malaysia India Iran Iran India India India India India Saudi Arabia Saudi Arabia India China China China
313 131 262 695 563 1502 553 144 237 2268 230 2901 702 7200 288 2748 674 952 216 318 361 194 718 170 895 111 2027 1000 1038 503 200 101 740 627 1350 1131
M:Fratio
13.9:1 4:1 4:1 3.2:1 3:1 2.8:1 4.8:1 5:1 8.1:1 3.8:1 11.8:1 3.4:1 5.3:1 12:1 7:1 3.7:1 3.6:1 2.1:1 3.1:1 3.2:1 20:1 4.5:1 6.6:1 3.8:1 3.4:1 10:1 7:1 5.8:1 9:1 7.25:1 6.1:1 4.2:1 4.6:1 4.9:1 3.5:1
Causes (%) Road crashes
Assault
Falls
Sport
Other
40.3 61.1 50 38.4 55 52 90 59 54 60 75 38 54 91 56 85 31 38.9 67.1 17 87 61.8 72 40 43.4 74.7 64.1 40 97 80.3 61 89.1 72 54.4 47.5 52.6
24.6 38.9 13 15.5 17 15.5 2.7 4 9.7 10 8 10 8 2.9 9 3 23 10.7 19.4 40.9 6 16 13.5 18.4 15.8 8.6 54 0.4 13.9 11.5 7.9 5 13.9 17.6 14.1
24 18 24.8 20 16.6 4.9 21.5 20.3 19 12 36.7 19 5.5 20 7 29 27 12.5 25 4 19.6 9.3 20.5 25.8 4.2 24 3 2 3 20 0 16 17.2 22 22.7
7 15.5 6 9.7 0.4 5 6.3 1 2.6 1.1 0.5 0.6 3 2 14 10.9 0.9 11.9 3 0.8 9.5 6.9 1 1 1 5.5 3 2 1.3 3 1.8
11.1 12 5.8 2 6.2 2 11.5 9.7 11 2.4 14 18.5 1 12 2 3 12.5 0.1 5 18.6 2 16.5 2.3 5.3 2.3 2 0.6 1.8 2 0 5 13.2 10 8.9
Road crashes
Assault
Falls
Sport
Other
34.8 58 23 57 48 24.7 14 50.5 12 15.5 27 11 35.2 50.8 68.8 4 42
27.1 8 30.5 9 17.5 40.1 48 13.4 12 61 20.5 14 22.3 26.3 7.3 72 16
20 15 12.4 12.5 7.8 38 17.4 13.8 4.3 18 21
12.8 4 16.3 4 18 16 7 15.3 31 1.5 11 35 8.3 3 17.1 5 12
25.3 30 30.2 10 16.3 19.2 16 8.4 45* 9.5 43.7 2 14.8 3 2.4 1 9
Table 4 Aetiology of maxillofacial fractures in Europe. First author
Afzelius52 Zachariades53 Hill54 Zachariades55 Timoney56 Timoney56 Torgersen57 Van Beek58 Gassner59 Bakardjiev60 Pombo61 Walker e62 Van den Bergh63 Kostakis64 Kyrgidis65 Rashid66 Van Hout67 ∗
Year
1980 1983 1984 1990 1990 1990 1992 1999 2003 2007 2010 2012 2012 2012 2013 2013 2013
Time period
1969 – 1976 1970 – 1980 1979 – 1983 1960 – 1984 1985 – 1986 1985 – 1986 1989 – 1991 1975 – 1987 1991 – 2000 1994 – 2003 2001 – 2008 2009 2000 – 2010 2005 – 2009 1998 – 2008 2005 – 2010 2005 – 2010
Country
Sweden Greece UK Greece France UK Norway The Netherlands Austria Bulgaria Spain Ireland The Netherlands Greece Greece UK The Netherlands
Activities of daily life and accidents + other cause.
No of patients
368 1791 827 3908 1146 506 169 1324 9543 1706 643 82 579 727 1239 1261 394
M:Fratio
3.8:1 3.6:1 2.6:1 3:1 3:1 3:1 3.7:1 2.8:1 2:1 4.6:1 4.9:1 1.8:1 2.4:1 5.7:1 4.4:1 6.6:1 3:1
Causes (%)
P. Boffano et al. / British Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery 52 (2014) 901–906
905
Table 5 Aetiology of maxillofacial fractures in Oceania. First author
68
Buchanan Cabalag 69
Year
2005 2013
Time period
1989 – 2000 2009 – 2011
Country
New Zealand Australia
No of patients
2527 980
(which was rarely considered as a specific cause) was included under “other causes”. The classification of bicycle accidents is still a problem, as they have been considered among falls, road traffic crashes, or sport. As we have said before, bicycle accidents and accidents at work should be considered as specific aetiological factors. A classification system for future reporting of injuries could be proposed, including different categories such as assaults, road traffic crashes, falls, accidents at work, sports accidents, bicycle accidents, and other causes. Of course, a more precise subclassification of causative mechanisms could be adopted too, including type of sport, type of work, and type of road traffic crash. We conclude that road traffic crashes remain the most important cause of maxillofacial trauma all over the world, with the exception of North America and Europe, where assaults and falls have become important. Sports accidents remain quite rare all over the world, whereas in Europe they constitute more than 10% of facial trauma. A multicentre, prospective epidemiological study is needed to investigate this complex subject thoroughly.
Conflict of interest We have no conflicts of interest. Ethics statement/confirmation of patients’ permission Not required.
References 1. Adekeye EO. The pattern of fractures of the facial skeleton in Kaduna, Nigeria. A survey of 1,447 cases. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol 1980;49:491–5. 2. Abiose BO. Maxillofacial skeleton injuries in the western states of Nigeria. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg 1986;24:31–9. 3. Khan AA. A retrospective study of injuries to the maxillofacial skeleton in Harare, Zimbabwe. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg 1988;26: 435–9. 4. Ugboko VI, Odusanya SA, Fagade OO. Maxillofacial fractures in a semiurban Nigerian teaching hospital. A review of 442 cases. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 1998;27:286–9. 5. Olasoji HO, Tahir A, Arotiba GT. Changing picture of facial fractures in northern Nigeria. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2002;40:140–3. 6. Adebayo ET, Ajike OS, Adekeye EO. Analysis of the pattern of maxillofacial fractures in Kaduna. Nigeria Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2003;41:396–400.
M:FRatio
3.9:1 4:1
Causes (%) Road crashes
Assault
Falls
Sport
Other
24 24
36 30
11 21
18 15
11 9
7. Schaftenaar E, Bastiaens GJ, Simon EN, et al. Presentation and management of maxillofacial trauma in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania. East Afr Med J 2009;86:254–8. 8. Hassan NA, Kelany RS, Emara AM, et al. Pattern of craniofacial injuries in patients admitted to Tanta University Hospital–Egypt. J Forensic Leg Med 2010;17:26–32. 9. Chalya PL, McHembe M, Mabula JB, et al. Etiological spectrum, injury characteristics and treatment outcome of maxillofacial injuries in a Tanzanian teaching hospital. J Trauma Manag Outcomes 2011; 5:7. 10. Vetter JD, Topazian RG, Goldberg MH, et al. Facial fractures occurring in a medium-sized metropolitan area: recent trends. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 1991;20:214–6. 11. Hogg NJ, Stewart TC, Armstrong JE, et al. Epidemiology of maxillofacial injuries at trauma hospitals in Ontario, Canada, between 1992 and 1997. J Trauma 2000;49:425–32. 12. Brasileiro BF, Passeri LA. 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. 13. Erdmann D, Follmar KE, Debruijn M, et al. A retrospective analysis of facial fracture etiologies. Ann Plast Surg 2008;60:398–403. 14. Maliska MC, Lima Júnior SM, Gil JN. Analysis of 185 maxillofacial fractures in the state of Santa Catarina, Brazil. Braz Oral Res 2009;23:268–74. 15. Smith H, Peek-Asa C, Nesheim D, et al. Etiology, diagnosis, and characteristics of facial fracture at a midwestern level I trauma center. J Trauma Nurs 2012;19:57–65. 16. Nair KB, Paul G. Incidence and aetiology of fractures of the faciomaxillary skeleton in Trivandrum: a retrospective study. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg 1986;24:40–3. 17. Karyouti SM. Maxillofacial injuries at Jordan University Hospital. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 1987;16:262–5. 18. Sawhney CP, Ahuja RB. Faciomaxillary fractures in north India. A statistical analysis and review of management. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg 1988;26:430–4. 19. Tanaka N, Tomitsuka K, Shionoya K, et al. Aetiology of maxillofacial fracture. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg 1994;32:19–23. 20. Bataineh AB. Etiology and incidence of maxillofacial fractures in the north of Jordan. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 1998;86:31–5. 21. Iida S, Kogo M, Sugiura T, et al. Retrospective analysis of 1502 patients with facial fractures. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2001;30:286–90. 22. Aksoy E, Unlü E, Sensöz O. A retrospective study on epidemiology and treatment of maxillofacial fractures. J Craniofac Surg 2002;13: 772–5. 23. Klenk G, Kovacs A. Etiology and patterns of facial fractures in the United Arab Emirates. J Craniofac Surg 2003;14:78–84. 24. Motamedi MH. An assessment of maxillofacial fractures: a 5-year study of 237 patients. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2003;61:61–4. 25. Ansari MH. Maxillofacial fractures in Hamedan province, Iran: a retrospective study (1987-2001). J Craniomaxillofac Surg 2004;32:28–34. 26. Al Ahmed HE, Jaber MA, Abu Fanas SH, et al. The pattern of maxillofacial fractures in Sharjah, United Arab Emirates: a review of 230 cases. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 2004;98: 166–70. 27. Erol B, Tanrikulu R, Görgün B. Maxillofacial fractures. Analysis of demographic distribution and treatment in 2901 patients (25-year experience). J Craniomaxillofac Surg 2004;32:308–13. 28. Cheema SA, Amin F. Incidence and causes of maxillofacial skeletal injuries at the Mayo Hospital in Lahore, Pakistan. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2006;44:232–4.
906
P. Boffano et al. / British Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery 52 (2014) 901–906
29. Kadkhodaie MH. Three-year review of facial fractures at a teaching hospital in northern Iran. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2006;44:229–31. 30. Al-Khateeb T, Abdullah FM. Craniomaxillofacial injuries in the United Arab Emirates: a retrospective study. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2007;65:1094–101. 31. Subhashraj K, Nandakumar N, Ravindran C. Review of maxillofacial injuries in Chennai, India: a study of 2748 cases. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2007;45:637–9. 32. Sasaki R, Ogiuchi H, Kumasaka A, et al. Analysis of the pattern of maxillofacial fracture by five departments in Tokyo: A review of 674 cases. Oral Science International 2009;6:1–7. 33. Abbas I, Fayyaz M, Shah I, et al. Demographic distribution of maxillofacial fractures in Ayub Teaching Hospital: 7-year review. J Ayub Med Coll Abbottabad 2009;21:110–2. 34. Ozkaya O, Turgut G, Kayali MU, et al. A retrospective study on the epidemiology and treatment of maxillofacial fractures. Ulus Travma Acil Cerrahi Derg 2009;15:262–6. 35. Lee JH, Cho BK, Park WJ. A 4-year retrospective study of facial fractures on Jeju, Korea. J Craniomaxillofac Surg 2010;38:192–6. 36. Venugopal MG, Sinha R, Menon PS, et al. Fractures in the maxillofacial region: A four year retrospective study. Medical Journal of the Armed Forces of India 2010;66:14–7. 37. Hashim H, Iqbal S. Motorcycle accident is the main cause of maxillofacial injuries in the Penang Mainland, Malaysia. Dent Traumatol 2011;27:19–22. 38. Gandhi S, Ranganathan LK, Solanki M, et al. Pattern of maxillofacial fractures at a tertiary hospital in northern India: a 4-year retrospective study of 718 patients. Dent Traumatol 2011;27:257–62. 39. Mesgarzadeh AH, Shahamfar M, Azar SF, et al. Analysis of the pattern of maxillofacial fractures in north western of Iran: A retrospective study. J Emerg Trauma Shock 2011;4:48–52. 40. Zandi M, Khayati A, Lamei A, et al. Maxillofacial injuries in western Iran: a prospective study. Oral Maxillofac Surg 2011;15: 201–9. 41. Kamath RA, Bharani S, Hammannavar R, et al. Maxillofacial trauma in central karnataka, India: an outcome of 95 cases in a regional trauma care centre. Craniomaxillofac Trauma Reconstr 2012;5: 197–204. 42. Naveen Shankar A, Naveen Shankar V, Hegde N, et al. The pattern of the maxillofacial fractures - A multicentre retrospective study. J Craniomaxillofac Surg 2012;40:675–9. 43. Kapoor P, Kalra N. A retrospective analysis of maxillofacial injuries in patients reporting to a tertiary care hospital in East Delhi. Int J Crit Illn Inj Sci 2012;2:6–10. 44. Singh V, Malkunje L, Mohammad S, et al. The maxillofacial injuries: A study. Natl J Maxillofac Surg 2012;3:166–71. 45. Kar IB, Mahavoi BR. Retrospective analysis of 503 maxillo-facial trauma cases in odisha during the period of dec’04-nov’09. J Maxillofac Oral Surg 2012;11:177–81. 46. Abdullah WA, Al-Mutairi K, Al-Ali Y, et al. Patterns and etiology of maxillofacial fractures in Riyadh City, Saudi Arabia. Saudi Dent J 2013;25:33–8. 47. Almasri M. Severity and causality of maxillofacial trauma in the Southern region of Saudi Arabia. Saudi Dent J 2013;25:107–10. 48. Bali R, Sharma P, Garg A, et al. A comprehensive study on maxillofacial trauma conducted in Yamunanagar, India. J Inj Violence Res 2013;5:108–16. 49. Jin Z, Jiang X, Shang L. Analysis of 627 hospitalized maxillofacial-oral injuries in Xi’an, China. Dent Traumatol 2014;30:147–53.
50. Mijiti A, Ling W, Tuerdi M, et al. Epidemiological analysis of maxillofacial fractures treated at a university hospital, Xinjiang, China: A 5-year retrospective study. J Craniomaxillofac Surg 2014;42: 227–33. 51. Zhou HH, Ongodia D, Liu Q, et al. Changing pattern in the characteristics of maxillofacial fractures. J Craniofac Surg 2013;24: 929–33. 52. Afzelius LE, Rosén C. Facial fractures. A review of 368 cases. Int J Oral Surg 1980;9:25–32. 53. Zachariades N, Papavassiliou D, Papademetriou I, et al. Fractures of the facial skeleton in Greece. A retrospective study covering 1791 cases in 10 years. J Maxillofac Surg 1983;11:142–4. 54. Hill CM, Crosher RF, Carroll MJ, et al. Facial fractures–the results of a prospective four-year-study. J Maxillofac Surg 1984;12:267–70. 55. Zachariades N, Papavassiliou D. The pattern and aetiology of maxillofacial injuries in Greece. A retrospective study of 25 years and a comparison with other countries. J Craniomaxillofac Surg 1990;18:251–4. 56. Timoney N, Saiveau M, Pinsolle J, et al. A comparative study of maxillo-facial trauma in Bristol and Bordeaux. J Craniomaxillofac Surg 1990;18:154–7. 57. Torgersen S, Tornes K. Maxillofacial fractures in a Norwegian district. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 1992;21:335–8. 58. van Beek GJ, Merkx CA. Changes in the pattern of fractures of the maxillofacial skeleton. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 1999;28:424–8. 59. Gassner R, Tuli T, Hächl O, et al. Cranio-maxillofacial trauma: a 10 year review of 9,543 cases with 21,067 injuries. J Craniomaxillofac Surg 2003;31:51–61. 60. Bakardjiev A, Pechalova P. Maxillofacial fractures in Southern Bulgaria - a retrospective study of 1706 cases. J Craniomaxillofac Surg 2007;35:147–50. 61. Pombo M, Luaces-Rey R, Pértega S, et al. Review of 793 facial fractures treated from 2001 to 2008 in a coru˜na university hospital: types and etiology. Craniomaxillofac Trauma Reconstr 2010;3:49–54. 62. Walker TW, Donnellan J, Byrne S, et al. West of Ireland facial injury study. Part 2. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2012;50:e99–103. 63. van den Bergh B, Karagozoglu KH, Heymans MW, et al. Aetiology and incidence of maxillofacial trauma in Amsterdam: a retrospective analysis of 579 patients. J Craniomaxillofac Surg 2012;40: e165–9. 64. Kostakis G, Stathopoulos P, Dais P, et al. An epidemiologic analysis of 1,142 maxillofacial fractures and concomitant injuries. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol 2012;114(5 suppl):S69–73. 65. Kyrgidis A, Koloutsos G, Kommata A, et al. Incidence, aetiology, treatment outcome and complications of maxillofacial fractures. A retrospective study from Northern Greece. J Craniomaxillofac Surg 2013;41:637–43. 66. Rashid A, Eyeson J, Haider D, et al. Incidence and patterns of mandibular fractures during a 5-year period in a London teaching hospital. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2013;51:794–8. 67. van Hout WM, Van Cann EM, Abbink JH, et al. An epidemiological study of maxillofacial fractures requiring surgical treatment at a tertiary trauma centre between 2005 and 2010. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2013;51:416–20. 68. Buchanan J, Colquhoun A, Friedlander L, et al. Maxillofacial fractures at Waikato Hospital, New Zealand: 1989 to 2000. N Z Med J 2005;118:U1529. 69. Cabalag MS, Wasiak J, Andrew NE, et al. Epidemiology and management of maxillofacial fractures in an Australian trauma centre. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg 2014;67:183–9.
British Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery 52 (2014) 901–906
Review
Aetiology of maxillofacial fractures: a review of published studies during the last 30 years Paolo Boffano ∗ , Sofie C. Kommers, K. Hakki Karagozoglu, Tymour Forouzanfar Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery/Pathology, VU University Medical Center and Academic Centre for Dentistry Amsterdam (ACTA), P.O. Box 7057, 1007 MB Amsterdam, The Netherlands Accepted 14 August 2014 Available online 15 September 2014
Abstract The epidemiology of facial trauma may vary widely across countries (and even within the same country), and is dependent on several cultural and socioeconomic factors. We know of few reviews of published reports that have considered the sex distribution and aetiology of maxillofacial trauma throughout the world. The aim of this review was to discuss these aspects as they have been presented in papers published during the last 30 years. We made a systematic review of papers about the epidemiology of maxillofacial trauma that were published between January 1980 and December 2013 and identified 69 studies from Africa (n=9), North America and Brazil (n=6), Asia (n=36), Europe (n=16), and Oceania (n=2). In all the studies men outnumbered women, the ratio usually being more than 2:1. In American, African, and Asian studies road traffic crashes were the predominant cause. In European studies the aetiology varied, with assaults and road traffic crashes being the most important factors. In Oceania assaults were the most important. A comparison of the incidence of maxillofacial trauma of different countries together with a knowledge of different laws (seat belts for drivers, helmets for motocyclists, speed limits, and protection worn during sports and at work) is crucial to allow for improvement in several countries. To our knowledge this paper is the first attempt to study and compare the aetiologies of maxillofacial trauma. © 2014 The British Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Maxillofacial trauma; Maxillofacial; Facial; Fracture; Etiology; Cause; Mechanism; Epidemiology
Introduction Maxillofacial injuries are a serious public health and economic problem, as their treatment, and time spent in hospital and off work, is expensive. They are also often associated with severe morbidity, disfigurement, and psychological problems.1–69 Their epidemiology may vary widely from country to country (and even within the same country), and it is dependent on several factors, including culture, socioeconomic background, and population density.9,28,30,33,38,46
∗ Corresponding author. Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery/Pathology, VU University Medical Center and Academic Centre for Dentistry Amsterdam (ACTA), P.O. Box 7057, 1007 MB Amsterdam, The Netherlands. E-mail address: [email protected] (P. Boffano).
First, the populations in urban and rural environments differ in density and infrastructure. The incidence of road traffic crashes may depend on: increases in the volume of traffic, a substantial rural to urban drift of the productive segment of the population, deteriorating infrastructure such as roads, road building programmes, widespread use of second-hand vehicles, young people driving illegally, young children travelling as front seat passengers without restraint, driving under the influence of alcohol, and non-compliance with legislation about seatbelts and crash helmets.6,12,25–27,30,38 However, enforcement of legislation about seat belts and crash helmets, measures for speed control, restrictions about driving under the influence of alcohol, the use of surveillance cameras in the streets, the development of subways, and the control of heavy wagons, can reduce the number of road traffic crashes.6,12,25–27,30,38
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.bjoms.2014.08.007 0266-4356/© 2014 The British Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
902
P. Boffano et al. / British Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery 52 (2014) 901–906
Since the implementation of programmes to reduce road traffic crashes and apply restraints in some countries, the ease of acquiring weapons and increasingly aggressive behaviour in urban centres have led to a rise in the number of assaults, and replaced road crashes as the leading cause of maxillofacial injuries.12 The change in assault weapons, with fists or heavy articles being replaced by knives or other sharp weapons, may affect the number of facial injuries.25 The discrepancy in assault-related facial injury may also depend on differences in social customs and alcohol intake, and some specific religious practices or social habits may limit or forbid the drinking of alcohol.20 Excessive consumption is strongly associated with assaults, as it impairs judgement, encourages aggression, and often leads to interpersonal violence.9 The strictness of laws governing the sale and consumption of alcohol in some countries may have effectively prevented alcohol-related injuries in some countries.9 Finally, it is important to remember that turbulent political transition in a country may generate a certain insubordination by part of the population and increase the rate of assaults.60 Social and cultural factors are crucial in sports injuries, as the popularity of contact sports such as rugby or boxing can dramatically increase the rate of sport-related maxillofacial injuries.38 The rate of accidents at work also differs from country to country and even within the same country, as specific categories of worker are at higher risk of facial injury (such as construction and forestry workers).38 In these cases, enforcement of work protection legislation is fundamental. In some countries men usually work outdoors and women are mainly confined to the house or work as teachers, nurses, and doctors, and only few of them drive cars.26,38 This has resulted in an increase in the male:female ratio in several countries.26,38 In countries where women participate directly in social activities and consequently are more susceptible to traffic crashes and urban violence, the ratio of men:women with maxillofacial injuries can be much lower.12 The more active lifestyles, increased life expectancy, and a general increase in the number of elderly people also play a part in the increase in the age of people with such injuries.25 Thorough knowledge and understanding of the aetiology and epidemiology of facial injuries is fundamental for the development of health services, the training of maxillofacial surgeons, and the adoption of new methods of preventing injuries. The aim of this paper, therefore, was to review and discuss papers that were published during the past 30 years about the distribution and aetiology of facial injuries throughout the world.
Material and methods We systematically reviewed all papers that were published in English between January 1980 and December 2013 using MEDLINE and the MeSH term “facial fractures” together
with the terms “review”, “‘epidemiology”, and “aetiology”. Twelve papers in other languages were excluded. Papers that presented complete data about the sex distribution and aetiology of the groups studied were identified and included. Those that gave epidemiological data only about specific groups or specific conditions (such as children, old people, and military exercises) were excluded, as well as those that recorded only specific maxillofacial trauma such as injuries to the mandible alone. Data were collected on sex distribution and aetiology, and summarised in tables according to continents. Papers were classified according to the size of the sample, for which they were rated A (n=1000 or more), B (n=200999), or C (n=<200), and the design, for which they were rated 1 (prospective) or 2 (retrospective).
Results A total of 69 studies were identified from Africa (n=9), from North America and Brazil (n=6), from Asia (n=36), from Europe (n=16), and from Oceania (n=2) (Tables 1–5). Only 6 paperss1,11,12,40,56,59 were rated A1 according to our classification. The others were classified as A2 (n=18), B1 (n=4), B2 (n=29), C1 (n=5), and C2 (n=7). In all studies men outnumbered women, the male:female ratio usually being more than 2:1. In African studies most showed a male:female ratio of 4:1 or more (Table 1), but the trend during the last 30 years has shown a slight decrease with an adjustment towards 4/5:1. With few exceptions African studies showed that in most cases road traffic crashes have remained the most important aetiological factor, with a progressive reduction during the last 20 years. Assault was the second most common cause of maxillofacial injury in several papers, whereas falls and sport accidents were more sporadic. In North America and Brazil (Table 2), male:female ratios were between 2:1 and 4.3:1 and tended to stabilise during the last 3 decades. Road traffic crashes were the most important cause in almost all studies and the number remained stable, followed by assaults, the incidence of which progressively increased. Papers from Asia included most of the epidemiological studies (Table 3). Male:female ratios were extremely variable, and ranged from 2.1:1 to 20:1, but no solid trend was apparent across the last 30 years, partly because of the great social and economic differences among the countries. However, there was a predominance of road traffic crashes in nearly all studies, with percentages of over 45% – 50% even during recent years. Only two studies presented assaults as the most important aetiological factor.22,29 Falls remained a common cause in all countries, with percentages often higher than 20%. In Europe the male:female ratios ranged between 1.8:1 and 6.6:1 and remained stable across the last 3 decades (Table 4).
P. Boffano et al. / British Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery 52 (2014) 901–906
903
Table 1 Aetiology of maxillofacial fractures in Africa. First author
Adekeye1 Abiose2 Khan3 Ugboko4 Olasoji5 Adebayo6 Schaftenaar7 Hassan8 Chalya9 ∗
Year
1980 1986 1988 1998 2002 2003 2009 2010 2011
Time period
1973 – 1978 1982 – 1984 1985 – 1986 1982 – 1995 1996 – 1999 1991 – 2000 2001 – 2007 2008 – 2009
Country
Nigeria Nigeria Zimbabwe Nigeria Nigeria Nigeria Tanzania Egypt Tanzania
No of patients
1447 104 311 442 206 443 532 255 154
M:F ratio 16.9:1 72.7 5.5:1 4.3:1 4.1:1 2.19:1 4.7:1 4.3:1 5.5:1 2.7:1
Causes (%) Road crashes
Assault
Falls
Sport
Other
80.8 14.8 71.9 36 56 42.3 54 57.1
12.7 13.5 81.6 8.4 48 13 39.1 9.4 16.2
7.9 1.9 10.9 9 24 6.6 14.3
1.3 1.9 3.6 3.2 4 5 4.9 2.6
5.3 1.9 5.6 3 3 7.1 36.5* 9.7
Activities of daily life and accidents + other cause.
The aetiology was extremely variable, in that in several studies road traffic crashes were the most common cause, whereas in 5 assaults were the most common cause. There was also a progressively increasing trend in the incidence of falls, whereas sport accidents were the cause in more than 10% of facial trauma overall. Finally, in Oceania the male:female ratio was 4:1 (Table 5), with assaults as the most important cause of maxillofacial injuries, followed by road crashes.
Discussion Knowledge about the epidemiology of maxillofacial trauma is fundamental for every maxillofacial surgeon and for all national health systems, and thanks to a thorough knowledge of the mechanisms of injuries, preventive measures can be introduced. The male:female ratio is an important variable. In all studies men outnumbered women with the male:female ratio usually above 2:1. Several studies did not give it in the different aetiological categories, but the information would be valuable. On the whole, lower male:female ratios were quoted in papers from Europe and North America and Brazil, whereas papers from Asia and Africa reported the highest ratios. Road traffic crashes remain the most important cause of maxillofacial trauma all over the world, although there was a progressively decreasing trend, particularly in North America and Brazil, and Europe. In these continents, assaults and falls have become more important, probably as a result of
more severe traffic laws and the consequent reduction in road traffic crashes in general. The general ageing of the European population may also play a part in the increase of falls. Sport accidents remain relatively rare all over the world with the exception of Europe, where they cause more than 10% of facial trauma. We found a wide variation in aetiology between studies from the same country, even during the same period of time. Of course this can be explained by the different social groups that used the particular hospital or trauma centre being studied. A hospital may be a tertiary centre for a mostly rural or urban population, which would reflect a different pattern of work. Rates of criminal behaviour may differ from town to town, which would give a different role to assault as an aetiological factor for maxillofacial injuries. In some countries (such as North America) maxillofacial fractures are treated by multiple specialty services and without a uniform system of trauma centres, so there may be bias in the reports of aetiologies. It is almost impossible therefore to compare data from groups of injured patients statistically, even within the same country. However, there may be a general pattern of aetiological factors shown by assessment of this analysis and of eventual future prospective studies, keeping in mind that laws, drinking habits, standards of roads, types of work, and other conditions can vary even in the same country. For this reason this study has several biases and limitations, but to our knowledge it is the first complete review of the epidemiology of maxillofacial trauma. The most important biases include the difference in classifications of some causes of injury, such as accidents at work. This category
Table 2 Aetiology of maxillofacial fractures in North America and Brazil. First author
Year
Time period
Country
No of patients
M:Fratio
Vetter10 Hogg11 Brasileiro12 Erdmann13 De Souza Maliska14 Smith e15
1991 2000 2006 2008 2009 2012
1986 – 1988 1992 – 1997 1999 – 2004 2003 – 2005 2002 – 2006 2008 – 2009
USA Canada Brazil USA Brazil USA
311 2969 1024 437 132 154
2.8:1 3:1 4:1 2.5:1 4.3:1 2:1
Causes (%) Road crashes
Assault
Falls
Sport
Other
40 70 45 32 48.4 47
37 8 23 36 36.4 -
12 12 18 18 9.8 25
9 8 11 -
2 11 6 3 5.4 28
904
P. Boffano et al. / British Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery 52 (2014) 901–906
Table 3 Aetiology of maxillofacial fractures in Asia. First author
Nair16 Karyouti17 Sawhney18 Tanaka19 Bataineh20 Iida21 Aksoy22 Klenk23 Motamedi24 Ansari25 Al Ahmed26 Erol27 Cheema28 Kadkhodaie29 Al-Khateeb30 Subhashraj31 Sasaki32 Abbas33 Ozkaya34 Lee35 Venugopal36 Hashim37 Gandhi38 Mesgarzadeh39 Zandi40 Kamath41 Naveen Shankar42 Kapoor43 Singh44 Kar and Mahavoi45 Abdullah et al46 Almasri47 Bali et al48 Jin et al49 Mijiti et al50 Zhou et al51
Year
1986 1987 1988 1994 1998 2001 2002 2003 2003 2004 2004 2004 2006 2006 2007 2007 2009 2009 2009 2010 2010 2011 2011 2011 2011 2012 2012 2012 2012 2012 2013 2013 2013 2013 2013 2013
Time period
1982 – 1983 1981 – 1983 1982 – 1983 1977 – 1989 1992 – 1997 1981 – 1996 1994 – 2001 1998 – 2001 1996 – 2001 1987 – 2001 1999 – 2002 1978 – 2002 2001 – 2002 2001 – 2004 1995 – 2003 1999 – 2005 2000 – 2004 2001 – 2007 2000 – 2005 2003 – 2007 2004 – 2008 2007 – 2008 2006 – 2009 2001 – 2006 2007 – 2009 2004 – 2009 2000 – 2005 2008 – 2009 2006 – 2011 2004 – 2009 2007 – 2011 2010 – 2011 2003 – 2010 2008 2006 – 2010 2000 – 2009
Country
No of patients
India Jordan India Japan Jordan Japan Turkey United Arab Emirates Iran Iran United Arab Emirates Turkey Pakistan Iran United Arab Emirates India Japan Pakistan Turkey Republic of Korea India Malaysia India Iran Iran India India India India India Saudi Arabia Saudi Arabia India China China China
313 131 262 695 563 1502 553 144 237 2268 230 2901 702 7200 288 2748 674 952 216 318 361 194 718 170 895 111 2027 1000 1038 503 200 101 740 627 1350 1131
M:Fratio
13.9:1 4:1 4:1 3.2:1 3:1 2.8:1 4.8:1 5:1 8.1:1 3.8:1 11.8:1 3.4:1 5.3:1 12:1 7:1 3.7:1 3.6:1 2.1:1 3.1:1 3.2:1 20:1 4.5:1 6.6:1 3.8:1 3.4:1 10:1 7:1 5.8:1 9:1 7.25:1 6.1:1 4.2:1 4.6:1 4.9:1 3.5:1
Causes (%) Road crashes
Assault
Falls
Sport
Other
40.3 61.1 50 38.4 55 52 90 59 54 60 75 38 54 91 56 85 31 38.9 67.1 17 87 61.8 72 40 43.4 74.7 64.1 40 97 80.3 61 89.1 72 54.4 47.5 52.6
24.6 38.9 13 15.5 17 15.5 2.7 4 9.7 10 8 10 8 2.9 9 3 23 10.7 19.4 40.9 6 16 13.5 18.4 15.8 8.6 54 0.4 13.9 11.5 7.9 5 13.9 17.6 14.1
24 18 24.8 20 16.6 4.9 21.5 20.3 19 12 36.7 19 5.5 20 7 29 27 12.5 25 4 19.6 9.3 20.5 25.8 4.2 24 3 2 3 20 0 16 17.2 22 22.7
7 15.5 6 9.7 0.4 5 6.3 1 2.6 1.1 0.5 0.6 3 2 14 10.9 0.9 11.9 3 0.8 9.5 6.9 1 1 1 5.5 3 2 1.3 3 1.8
11.1 12 5.8 2 6.2 2 11.5 9.7 11 2.4 14 18.5 1 12 2 3 12.5 0.1 5 18.6 2 16.5 2.3 5.3 2.3 2 0.6 1.8 2 0 5 13.2 10 8.9
Road crashes
Assault
Falls
Sport
Other
34.8 58 23 57 48 24.7 14 50.5 12 15.5 27 11 35.2 50.8 68.8 4 42
27.1 8 30.5 9 17.5 40.1 48 13.4 12 61 20.5 14 22.3 26.3 7.3 72 16
20 15 12.4 12.5 7.8 38 17.4 13.8 4.3 18 21
12.8 4 16.3 4 18 16 7 15.3 31 1.5 11 35 8.3 3 17.1 5 12
25.3 30 30.2 10 16.3 19.2 16 8.4 45* 9.5 43.7 2 14.8 3 2.4 1 9
Table 4 Aetiology of maxillofacial fractures in Europe. First author
Afzelius52 Zachariades53 Hill54 Zachariades55 Timoney56 Timoney56 Torgersen57 Van Beek58 Gassner59 Bakardjiev60 Pombo61 Walker e62 Van den Bergh63 Kostakis64 Kyrgidis65 Rashid66 Van Hout67 ∗
Year
1980 1983 1984 1990 1990 1990 1992 1999 2003 2007 2010 2012 2012 2012 2013 2013 2013
Time period
1969 – 1976 1970 – 1980 1979 – 1983 1960 – 1984 1985 – 1986 1985 – 1986 1989 – 1991 1975 – 1987 1991 – 2000 1994 – 2003 2001 – 2008 2009 2000 – 2010 2005 – 2009 1998 – 2008 2005 – 2010 2005 – 2010
Country
Sweden Greece UK Greece France UK Norway The Netherlands Austria Bulgaria Spain Ireland The Netherlands Greece Greece UK The Netherlands
Activities of daily life and accidents + other cause.
No of patients
368 1791 827 3908 1146 506 169 1324 9543 1706 643 82 579 727 1239 1261 394
M:Fratio
3.8:1 3.6:1 2.6:1 3:1 3:1 3:1 3.7:1 2.8:1 2:1 4.6:1 4.9:1 1.8:1 2.4:1 5.7:1 4.4:1 6.6:1 3:1
Causes (%)
P. Boffano et al. / British Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery 52 (2014) 901–906
905
Table 5 Aetiology of maxillofacial fractures in Oceania. First author
68
Buchanan Cabalag 69
Year
2005 2013
Time period
1989 – 2000 2009 – 2011
Country
New Zealand Australia
No of patients
2527 980
(which was rarely considered as a specific cause) was included under “other causes”. The classification of bicycle accidents is still a problem, as they have been considered among falls, road traffic crashes, or sport. As we have said before, bicycle accidents and accidents at work should be considered as specific aetiological factors. A classification system for future reporting of injuries could be proposed, including different categories such as assaults, road traffic crashes, falls, accidents at work, sports accidents, bicycle accidents, and other causes. Of course, a more precise subclassification of causative mechanisms could be adopted too, including type of sport, type of work, and type of road traffic crash. We conclude that road traffic crashes remain the most important cause of maxillofacial trauma all over the world, with the exception of North America and Europe, where assaults and falls have become important. Sports accidents remain quite rare all over the world, whereas in Europe they constitute more than 10% of facial trauma. A multicentre, prospective epidemiological study is needed to investigate this complex subject thoroughly.
Conflict of interest We have no conflicts of interest. Ethics statement/confirmation of patients’ permission Not required.
References 1. Adekeye EO. The pattern of fractures of the facial skeleton in Kaduna, Nigeria. A survey of 1,447 cases. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol 1980;49:491–5. 2. Abiose BO. Maxillofacial skeleton injuries in the western states of Nigeria. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg 1986;24:31–9. 3. Khan AA. A retrospective study of injuries to the maxillofacial skeleton in Harare, Zimbabwe. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg 1988;26: 435–9. 4. Ugboko VI, Odusanya SA, Fagade OO. Maxillofacial fractures in a semiurban Nigerian teaching hospital. A review of 442 cases. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 1998;27:286–9. 5. Olasoji HO, Tahir A, Arotiba GT. Changing picture of facial fractures in northern Nigeria. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2002;40:140–3. 6. Adebayo ET, Ajike OS, Adekeye EO. Analysis of the pattern of maxillofacial fractures in Kaduna. Nigeria Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2003;41:396–400.
M:FRatio
3.9:1 4:1
Causes (%) Road crashes
Assault
Falls
Sport
Other
24 24
36 30
11 21
18 15
11 9
7. Schaftenaar E, Bastiaens GJ, Simon EN, et al. Presentation and management of maxillofacial trauma in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania. East Afr Med J 2009;86:254–8. 8. Hassan NA, Kelany RS, Emara AM, et al. Pattern of craniofacial injuries in patients admitted to Tanta University Hospital–Egypt. J Forensic Leg Med 2010;17:26–32. 9. Chalya PL, McHembe M, Mabula JB, et al. Etiological spectrum, injury characteristics and treatment outcome of maxillofacial injuries in a Tanzanian teaching hospital. J Trauma Manag Outcomes 2011; 5:7. 10. Vetter JD, Topazian RG, Goldberg MH, et al. Facial fractures occurring in a medium-sized metropolitan area: recent trends. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 1991;20:214–6. 11. Hogg NJ, Stewart TC, Armstrong JE, et al. Epidemiology of maxillofacial injuries at trauma hospitals in Ontario, Canada, between 1992 and 1997. J Trauma 2000;49:425–32. 12. Brasileiro BF, Passeri LA. 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. 13. Erdmann D, Follmar KE, Debruijn M, et al. A retrospective analysis of facial fracture etiologies. Ann Plast Surg 2008;60:398–403. 14. Maliska MC, Lima Júnior SM, Gil JN. Analysis of 185 maxillofacial fractures in the state of Santa Catarina, Brazil. Braz Oral Res 2009;23:268–74. 15. Smith H, Peek-Asa C, Nesheim D, et al. Etiology, diagnosis, and characteristics of facial fracture at a midwestern level I trauma center. J Trauma Nurs 2012;19:57–65. 16. Nair KB, Paul G. Incidence and aetiology of fractures of the faciomaxillary skeleton in Trivandrum: a retrospective study. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg 1986;24:40–3. 17. Karyouti SM. Maxillofacial injuries at Jordan University Hospital. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 1987;16:262–5. 18. Sawhney CP, Ahuja RB. Faciomaxillary fractures in north India. A statistical analysis and review of management. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg 1988;26:430–4. 19. Tanaka N, Tomitsuka K, Shionoya K, et al. Aetiology of maxillofacial fracture. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg 1994;32:19–23. 20. Bataineh AB. Etiology and incidence of maxillofacial fractures in the north of Jordan. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 1998;86:31–5. 21. Iida S, Kogo M, Sugiura T, et al. Retrospective analysis of 1502 patients with facial fractures. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2001;30:286–90. 22. Aksoy E, Unlü E, Sensöz O. A retrospective study on epidemiology and treatment of maxillofacial fractures. J Craniofac Surg 2002;13: 772–5. 23. Klenk G, Kovacs A. Etiology and patterns of facial fractures in the United Arab Emirates. J Craniofac Surg 2003;14:78–84. 24. Motamedi MH. An assessment of maxillofacial fractures: a 5-year study of 237 patients. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2003;61:61–4. 25. Ansari MH. Maxillofacial fractures in Hamedan province, Iran: a retrospective study (1987-2001). J Craniomaxillofac Surg 2004;32:28–34. 26. Al Ahmed HE, Jaber MA, Abu Fanas SH, et al. The pattern of maxillofacial fractures in Sharjah, United Arab Emirates: a review of 230 cases. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 2004;98: 166–70. 27. Erol B, Tanrikulu R, Görgün B. Maxillofacial fractures. Analysis of demographic distribution and treatment in 2901 patients (25-year experience). J Craniomaxillofac Surg 2004;32:308–13. 28. Cheema SA, Amin F. Incidence and causes of maxillofacial skeletal injuries at the Mayo Hospital in Lahore, Pakistan. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2006;44:232–4.
906
P. Boffano et al. / British Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery 52 (2014) 901–906
29. Kadkhodaie MH. Three-year review of facial fractures at a teaching hospital in northern Iran. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2006;44:229–31. 30. Al-Khateeb T, Abdullah FM. Craniomaxillofacial injuries in the United Arab Emirates: a retrospective study. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2007;65:1094–101. 31. Subhashraj K, Nandakumar N, Ravindran C. Review of maxillofacial injuries in Chennai, India: a study of 2748 cases. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2007;45:637–9. 32. Sasaki R, Ogiuchi H, Kumasaka A, et al. Analysis of the pattern of maxillofacial fracture by five departments in Tokyo: A review of 674 cases. Oral Science International 2009;6:1–7. 33. Abbas I, Fayyaz M, Shah I, et al. Demographic distribution of maxillofacial fractures in Ayub Teaching Hospital: 7-year review. J Ayub Med Coll Abbottabad 2009;21:110–2. 34. Ozkaya O, Turgut G, Kayali MU, et al. A retrospective study on the epidemiology and treatment of maxillofacial fractures. Ulus Travma Acil Cerrahi Derg 2009;15:262–6. 35. Lee JH, Cho BK, Park WJ. A 4-year retrospective study of facial fractures on Jeju, Korea. J Craniomaxillofac Surg 2010;38:192–6. 36. Venugopal MG, Sinha R, Menon PS, et al. Fractures in the maxillofacial region: A four year retrospective study. Medical Journal of the Armed Forces of India 2010;66:14–7. 37. Hashim H, Iqbal S. Motorcycle accident is the main cause of maxillofacial injuries in the Penang Mainland, Malaysia. Dent Traumatol 2011;27:19–22. 38. Gandhi S, Ranganathan LK, Solanki M, et al. Pattern of maxillofacial fractures at a tertiary hospital in northern India: a 4-year retrospective study of 718 patients. Dent Traumatol 2011;27:257–62. 39. Mesgarzadeh AH, Shahamfar M, Azar SF, et al. Analysis of the pattern of maxillofacial fractures in north western of Iran: A retrospective study. J Emerg Trauma Shock 2011;4:48–52. 40. Zandi M, Khayati A, Lamei A, et al. Maxillofacial injuries in western Iran: a prospective study. Oral Maxillofac Surg 2011;15: 201–9. 41. Kamath RA, Bharani S, Hammannavar R, et al. Maxillofacial trauma in central karnataka, India: an outcome of 95 cases in a regional trauma care centre. Craniomaxillofac Trauma Reconstr 2012;5: 197–204. 42. Naveen Shankar A, Naveen Shankar V, Hegde N, et al. The pattern of the maxillofacial fractures - A multicentre retrospective study. J Craniomaxillofac Surg 2012;40:675–9. 43. Kapoor P, Kalra N. A retrospective analysis of maxillofacial injuries in patients reporting to a tertiary care hospital in East Delhi. Int J Crit Illn Inj Sci 2012;2:6–10. 44. Singh V, Malkunje L, Mohammad S, et al. The maxillofacial injuries: A study. Natl J Maxillofac Surg 2012;3:166–71. 45. Kar IB, Mahavoi BR. Retrospective analysis of 503 maxillo-facial trauma cases in odisha during the period of dec’04-nov’09. J Maxillofac Oral Surg 2012;11:177–81. 46. Abdullah WA, Al-Mutairi K, Al-Ali Y, et al. Patterns and etiology of maxillofacial fractures in Riyadh City, Saudi Arabia. Saudi Dent J 2013;25:33–8. 47. Almasri M. Severity and causality of maxillofacial trauma in the Southern region of Saudi Arabia. Saudi Dent J 2013;25:107–10. 48. Bali R, Sharma P, Garg A, et al. A comprehensive study on maxillofacial trauma conducted in Yamunanagar, India. J Inj Violence Res 2013;5:108–16. 49. Jin Z, Jiang X, Shang L. Analysis of 627 hospitalized maxillofacial-oral injuries in Xi’an, China. Dent Traumatol 2014;30:147–53.
50. Mijiti A, Ling W, Tuerdi M, et al. Epidemiological analysis of maxillofacial fractures treated at a university hospital, Xinjiang, China: A 5-year retrospective study. J Craniomaxillofac Surg 2014;42: 227–33. 51. Zhou HH, Ongodia D, Liu Q, et al. Changing pattern in the characteristics of maxillofacial fractures. J Craniofac Surg 2013;24: 929–33. 52. Afzelius LE, Rosén C. Facial fractures. A review of 368 cases. Int J Oral Surg 1980;9:25–32. 53. Zachariades N, Papavassiliou D, Papademetriou I, et al. Fractures of the facial skeleton in Greece. A retrospective study covering 1791 cases in 10 years. J Maxillofac Surg 1983;11:142–4. 54. Hill CM, Crosher RF, Carroll MJ, et al. Facial fractures–the results of a prospective four-year-study. J Maxillofac Surg 1984;12:267–70. 55. Zachariades N, Papavassiliou D. The pattern and aetiology of maxillofacial injuries in Greece. A retrospective study of 25 years and a comparison with other countries. J Craniomaxillofac Surg 1990;18:251–4. 56. Timoney N, Saiveau M, Pinsolle J, et al. A comparative study of maxillo-facial trauma in Bristol and Bordeaux. J Craniomaxillofac Surg 1990;18:154–7. 57. Torgersen S, Tornes K. Maxillofacial fractures in a Norwegian district. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 1992;21:335–8. 58. van Beek GJ, Merkx CA. Changes in the pattern of fractures of the maxillofacial skeleton. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 1999;28:424–8. 59. Gassner R, Tuli T, Hächl O, et al. Cranio-maxillofacial trauma: a 10 year review of 9,543 cases with 21,067 injuries. J Craniomaxillofac Surg 2003;31:51–61. 60. Bakardjiev A, Pechalova P. Maxillofacial fractures in Southern Bulgaria - a retrospective study of 1706 cases. J Craniomaxillofac Surg 2007;35:147–50. 61. Pombo M, Luaces-Rey R, Pértega S, et al. Review of 793 facial fractures treated from 2001 to 2008 in a coru˜na university hospital: types and etiology. Craniomaxillofac Trauma Reconstr 2010;3:49–54. 62. Walker TW, Donnellan J, Byrne S, et al. West of Ireland facial injury study. Part 2. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2012;50:e99–103. 63. van den Bergh B, Karagozoglu KH, Heymans MW, et al. Aetiology and incidence of maxillofacial trauma in Amsterdam: a retrospective analysis of 579 patients. J Craniomaxillofac Surg 2012;40: e165–9. 64. Kostakis G, Stathopoulos P, Dais P, et al. An epidemiologic analysis of 1,142 maxillofacial fractures and concomitant injuries. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol 2012;114(5 suppl):S69–73. 65. Kyrgidis A, Koloutsos G, Kommata A, et al. Incidence, aetiology, treatment outcome and complications of maxillofacial fractures. A retrospective study from Northern Greece. J Craniomaxillofac Surg 2013;41:637–43. 66. Rashid A, Eyeson J, Haider D, et al. Incidence and patterns of mandibular fractures during a 5-year period in a London teaching hospital. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2013;51:794–8. 67. van Hout WM, Van Cann EM, Abbink JH, et al. An epidemiological study of maxillofacial fractures requiring surgical treatment at a tertiary trauma centre between 2005 and 2010. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2013;51:416–20. 68. Buchanan J, Colquhoun A, Friedlander L, et al. Maxillofacial fractures at Waikato Hospital, New Zealand: 1989 to 2000. N Z Med J 2005;118:U1529. 69. Cabalag MS, Wasiak J, Andrew NE, et al. Epidemiology and management of maxillofacial fractures in an Australian trauma centre. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg 2014;67:183–9.