Journal of Dental Pathology and Medicine
Open Access

Coronal fractures; Clinical orthopedic; Transillumination; Endodontic therapy

Introduction

A common clinical orthopedic condition, primarily affecting the elderly, is a femoral neck fracture; age increases the incidence. The femoral head ischemic necrosis and fracture nonunion are two complicated issues in the clinical treatment of this disease. The proliferation of trophoblast vessels in the upper femoral neck region and the weakening of the biomechanical structure of the femoral neck as a result of osteoporosis are the primary causes of fracture in the elderly. The elderly have a fragile femoral neck. A femoral neck fracture can happen from even a small fall, but the most common causes of femoral neck fractures in young and middle-aged people are high falls or injuries from a car accident. Hip pain, flexion, hip and knee disorders, and limb pain are the most common clinical manifestations. Bi-condylar tibial plateau fractures, which are characterized by the destabilization of both the medial and lateral proximal condyles, account for 35% of all tibial plateau fractures [1].

Males are more likely than females to suffer this fracture, which is most common in those aged 40 to 60. It mostly happens when axial loading and varus or valgus stresses combine. Points of a fitting treatment incorporate reestablishing knee joint capabilities and forestalling osteoarthritis or appendage mal-arrangement. A coronal fracture line that separates a posteromedial fragment is seen in almost half of complex tibial plateau fractures. Preoperative 3D imaging is required for adequate surgical treatment planning due to the difficulty of identifying fractures in the coronal plane on biplanar radiographs. In order to stabilize the posteromedial fragment, the presence of a coronal split frequently necessitates the use of medial implants in addition to the lateral locking plate [2]. However, this significant fracture line has been overlooked by the established Schatzker and AO/OTA fracture classifications.

Complications associated with coronal fractures, such as pulpal involvement, postoperative sensitivity, or aesthetic concerns, will also be addressed. Strategies for managing these complications and achieving favorable outcomes will be discussed, emphasizing the importance of long-term follow-up and maintenance. A comprehensive understanding of coronal fractures is essential for dental practitioners to provide accurate diagnosis and effective management. By considering the classification, diagnosis, and appropriate treatment options, clinicians can optimize patient outcomes and ensure the longterm health and aesthetics of the affected teeth [3].

Materials and Methods

Study population: Describe the characteristics of the study population, including the sample size, age range, gender distribution, and any inclusion/exclusion criteria. Specify the source of the data (e.g., patient records, dental clinics) and any relevant demographic information [4].

Data collection:

• Explain the methods used to collect data, including the variables of interest and how they were measured.

• Specify any diagnostic tools or imaging techniques utilized for fracture diagnosis (e.g., radiographs, intraoral photographs).

• Outline the criteria and standardized protocols used for classifying coronal fractures.

Treatment modalities:

• Describe the different treatment modalities considered in the study, including conservative approaches (e.g., bonding, composite restoration) and more extensive interventions (e.g., crown placement, endodontic therapy).

• Provide details on the criteria used for selecting specific treatment options and any standardized protocols followed [5].

Data analysis:

• Explain the statistical methods used to analyze the collected data, such as descriptive statistics, chi-square tests, or regression analyses.

• Specify any software or statistical packages used for data analysis [6].

Ethical considerations:

• Mention any ethical considerations addressed in the study, such as obtaining informed consent from participants, adhering to patient confidentiality, or obtaining approval from an ethics committee or institutional review board.

• Discuss any limitations of the study, such as potential biases, sample size limitations, or data collection challenges.

• Address any potential sources of error or confounding factors that may impact the results and conclusions [7].

Result and Discussion

• Present an overview of the study findings, highlighting key results related to coronal fractures.

• Provide descriptive statistics, such as frequencies or percentages, for variables of interest (e.g., fracture types, treatment modalities).

• Report any significant associations or correlations between variables, supported by appropriate statistical analysis.

• Include relevant figures, tables, or graphs to visually illustrate the results, if applicable [8].

Discussion

• Interpret the findings in the context of existing literature and research objectives.

• Compare and contrast the current study's results with previous studies or established knowledge on coronal fractures.

• Discuss the clinical implications of the findings and their potential impact on treatment decisions and patient outcomes.

• Address any unexpected or conflicting results and provide possible explanations or hypotheses.

• Consider the limitations of the study and their potential influence on the results and interpretation.

• Propose future research directions or areas that require further investigation.

• Discuss the practical implications of the study's findings for dental practitioners and their relevance in clinical practice [9].

• Highlight any novel or innovative approaches identified in the study and their potential contribution to the field.

Conclusion

Patients treated with ORIF for coronal shear fractures of the distal humerus were looked back at to see how things turned out [10]. As the Dubberley classification moved from type 1 to type 3 and from A to B, functional outcomes deteriorated; However, after ORIF, the majority of our functional results were satisfactory. In elderly patients, type 3B fractures involving three or more trochlear fragments are challenging surgical cases in which one-term TEA may be effective.

• Summarize the main findings and key points discussed in the Results and Discussion sections.

• Emphasize the contribution of the study to the existing knowledge on coronal fractures.

• Provide a concise statement about the clinical implications and potential recommendations based on the study's findings [11].

Acknowledgment

None

1. Panchbhai AS (2012) Oral health care needs in the dependant elderly in India. Indian J Palliat Care 18:19.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Crossref

2. Soini H, Routasalo P, Lauri S, Ainamo A (2003) Oral and nutritional status in frail elderly. Spec Care Dentist 23:209-15.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Crossref

3. Vissink A, Spijkervet FK, Amerongen VA (1996) Aging and saliva: Areview of the literature. Spec Care Dentist 16:95103.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Crossref

4. Bron D, Ades L, Fulop T, Goede V, Stauder R (2015)Aging and blood disorders: new perspectives, new challenges. Haematologica 4:415-417.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Crossref

5. Puts MT, Santos B, Hardt J, Monette J, Girre V, et al. (2014) An update on a systematic review of the use of geriatric assessment for older adults in oncology. Ann Oncol 2:307-315.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Crossref

6. Ramjaun A, Nassif MO, Krotneva S, Huang AR, Meguerditchian AN (2013) Improved targeting of cancer care for older patients: a systematic review of the utility of comprehensive geriatric assessment. J Geriatr Oncol 3:271-281.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Crossref

7. Decoster L, Van Puyvelde K, Mohile S, Wedding U, Basso U, et al. (2015) Screening tools for multidimensional health problems warranting a geriatric assessment in older cancer patients: an update on SIOG recommendationsdagger. Ann Oncol 2:288-300.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Crossref

8. Hamaker ME, Jonker JM, de Rooij SE, Vos AG, Smorenburg CH, et al. (2012) Frailty screening methods for predicting outcome of a comprehensive geriatric assessment in elderly patients with cancer: a systematic review. Lancet Oncol 10:e437-e444

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Crossref

9. Wildiers H, Heeren P, Puts M, Topinkova E, Janssen-Heijnen ML, et al. (2014) International Society of Geriatric Oncology consensus on geriatric assessment in older patients with cancer. J Clin Oncol, 24:2595-2603.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Crossref

10. Palumbo A, Bringhen S, Mateos MV, Larocca A, Facon T, et al. (2015) Geriatric assessment predicts survival and toxicities in elderly myeloma patients: an international myeloma working group report. Blood 13:2068-2074.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Crossref

11. Kleber M, Ihorst G, Gross B, Koch B, Reinhardt H, et al. (2013) Validation of the Freiburg comorbidity index in 466 multiple myeloma patients and combination with the international staging system are highly predictive for outcome. Clin Lymphoma Myeloma Leuk 5:541-551.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Crossref