الفهرس 
IntroductionOnly 14 pages are availabe for public view
 |  | from | 152 |  |  |
| | | from | 152 | | |
Abstract
Microplate fixation systems have been developed and made available by several manufactures. Comparing screw size and plate thickness, the microsystems are on the order of onehalf the size and thickness of comparable miniplate system. Advantages of microplates over miniplates includes: malleability of the microplates allows easier insertion into more limited access incisions and permits minute alterations in position once fixed into place. The smaller size and lower profile reduce the visibility and increase the esthetic result in the thinskinned orbital region and permits the restoration of preinjury anatomy In our study we have evaluated the use of microplates in fixation of zygomatic complex fractures, and compared between the use of linear and 3D microplates intraoperatively and postoperatively. Both linear microplates and 3Dmicroplates showed similar malleability with a little superiority to the linear microplates .Both the two types of plates hade the advantage the they can anatomically fix small bone pieces, which is not possible with the earlier wiring techniques or the miniplate systems.. The study results, did not encounter displacement of microplates or bony parts leading to non anatomic healing of fractures, and stated that the microplates (either linear or 3D) had enough holding power to keep the midfacial fractures reduced. In this study, the intraoperative comparison between the subciliary approach versus the transconjunctival lateral canthotomy approach reveled that the subciliary approaches were some what faster to approach the infraorbital rim. But, the transconjunctival lateral canthotomy approach provided wider exposure of the lateral orbital margin than the subciliary approach, which required an additional incision at the lateral eyebrow. Although, there was a significant difference in scar formation in the comparison of the two approaches, skin scarring has never been a problem in both categories. Incidences of temporary ectropion and scleral show were (8.3%) in the subciliary approach group. While the incidence of entropion was (8.3%). The incidence of epiphora was of a non significant difference between the two approaches.