845 final


Retrospec)ve Evalua)on of Management Strategies for Zygoma)c Complex Fractures: 
Surgical vs. Nonsurgical Interven)ons  

 

Vol 13 No 1 (2025)    DOI 10.5195/d3000.2025.845 

 

 h#p://den*stry3000.pi#.edu 

Retrospective Evaluation of Management Strategies for 
Zygomatic Complex Fractures: Surgical vs. Nonsurgical 
Interventions 
 
Mohammed Rhael Ali1, Azhar Abed Oudah2, Basim Ali Qasim3, Amran M. Al-Erjan4, Qais R. Lahhob5, Mustafa Mudhafar6,7 
 

1College of Dentistry, University of Tikrit, Tikrit, Iraq 
2College of Dentistry, University of Dhi-Qar, Dhi-Qar, Iraq 
3Al-Kharkh General Hospital, Baghdad, Iraq 
4Mazaya University College, Dhi Qar, Iraq 
5College of Health and Medical Technology, Al-Ayen University, Dhi Qar, Iraq 
6Faculty of Medical Applied Sciences, University of Karbala, Karbala, Iraq 
7Al-Taff University College, Karbala, Iraq

Abstract 

Objec?ves: The goal of the study was to evaluate the effecJveness of surgical and nonsurgical therapies 
in the treatment of zygomaJc complex fractures aMer a year. 
Materials and Methods: There were 100 paJents with zygomaJc complicated fractures in total; 50 of 
them underwent surgery and 50 underwent nonsurgical therapy. The one-year follow-up invesJgated 
aestheJc and pracJcal elements, such as malar symmetry, ocular movement, occlusion, mouth opening, 
complicaJons, and neurosensory impacts. 

Results: The findings showed that 45 of the 46 paJents who received surgical intervenJon had 
appropriate face contour and malar alignment. Each paJent maintained enophthalmos-free normal eye 
movement and posture. There was tolerable occlusion, and a 49 mm average mouth opening was 
achieved without pain. One paJent experienced minor ectropion, and five paJents developed wound 
infecJons. Persistent infraorbital neurosensory abnormaliJes affected 19 subjects. AMer a year, 
radiographic analysis showed that all paJents had excellent facial contour and adequate fracture 
alignment. However, the orbital floor placements of three individuals who underwent orbital 
reconstrucJon varied. Notably, neither orbital floor problems nor zygomaJc complex problems 
necessitated reoperaJons or addiJonal modificaJons in any paJents. 

Conclusions: The study concludes that nonsurgical treatments are preferable for nondisplaced fractures 
while surgical intervenJon is useful for depressed zygomaJc complex fractures. For most of occurrences, 
an intraoral approach with firm obsession at the zygomaJcomaxillary support is adequate. A second 

obsession technique including openness of 
the zygomaJcofrontal intersecJon or sub-par 
orbital edge is expected for severely uprooted 
breaks. This inside and out assessment offers 
accommodaJng bits of knowledge into the 
results and treatment decisions for zygomaJc 
confounded breaks. 

Keywords: COVID-19; DenJsts; Professional 
Concerns; Perceived Stress; Psychological 
Flexibility.  

Cita:on: Ali MR, et al. (2025) Retrospec:ve Evalua:on of 
Management Strategies for Zygoma:c Complex 
Fractures: Surgical vs. Nonsurgical Interven:ons. 
Den:stry 3000. 1:a001 doi:10.5195/d3000.2025.845 
Received: February 8, 2025  
Accepted: March 9, 2025 
Published: April 23, 2025 
Copyright: ©2025 Ali MR, et al. This is an open access 
ar:cle licensed under a Crea:ve Commons AVribu:on 
Work 4.0 United States License. 
Email: qaisrlahhob@gmail.com

 

 

 

Introduction 

The zygomaticomaxillary complex 

(ZMC) is an essential component of 

face anatomy that contributes 

significantly to the mid-facial 

contour and protection of the 

orbital contents on a functional, 

structural, and cosmetic level. One 

of the most frequent maxillofacial 

traumas is ZMC fractures. The 

majority of ZMC fractures are 

brought on by savage assaults, 

auto accidents, falls, and sports-

related injuries. The prevalence 

and etiology of ZMC fractures vary 

geographically and 

sociodemographic ally despite the 

fact that young adult males are 



Retrospec)ve Evalua)on of Management Strategies for Zygoma)c Complex Fractures: Surgical vs. 
Nonsurgical Interven)ons  

 

Vol 13 No 1 (2025)    DOI 10.5195/d3000.2025.845 

 

 h#p://den*stry3000.pi#.edu 

predominately affected. This 

diversity is caused by 

socioeconomic, cultural, and 

environmental factors. Making 

clinical decisions for the 

management of ZMC fractures 

might be difficult. Different 

treatment algorithms have been 

established, however there is still 

no universal agreement. An 

expectative strategy, a closed 

reduction without fixation, and an 

open reduction with fixation at one 

or more buttresses are 

theoretically the three therapeutic 

choices available for ZMC 

fractures. Anatomical reduction 

and a stable posture are the main 

objectives when treating ZMC 

fractures surgically to guarantee 

the best postoperative aesthetic 

and functional outcomes. There 

are two methods for reducing the 

fracture: closed (stab-incision) and 

open [1]. 

For ZMC fractures, closed 

reduction is a typical therapeutic 

strategy. Interfragmentary bone 

support and the presumption that 

there is no muscle pull on the ZMC 

are both essential for the stability 

of reduction. A new angle on this 

issue is provided by the 

development of intraoperative 

cone-beam computed tomography 

(CBCT), which has been identified 

as a drawback for the limited 

visibility of the fracture site. For the 

control of the fractures 

intraoperatively, understanding 

the three-dimensional 

characteristics of the dislocation 

patterns in zygoma fractures is 

crucial. Most surgeons concur that 

open reduction should be 

recommended in uncertain 

circumstances or when closed 

reduction is not possible. Open 

reduction without fixation, 

according to its proponents, 

enables reduction with direct 

visualization because the 

periosteum is cut open and raised 

to expose all fracture lines. It 

should be highlighted that 

numerous strategies are required 

to uncover all fracture lines. 

However, not all forms of fractures 

are thought to require the total 

overview and exposure of the 

fractured portions. If open 

reduction is chosen, internal 

fixation using titanium plates and 

screws is typically the 

recommended course of treatment 

to establish stability [2]. According 

to numerous publications, the 

number of fixation points should 

depend on a variety of variables, 

including the type of fracture, the 

type of displacement of the 

fracture segment, and the stability 

of the ZMC following reduction. 

One-point fixation reportedly 

achieves sufficient stability, 

However, according to some, 

repeated fixation is necessary to 

avoid inferior displacement, which 

can cause asymmetry in the face 

[3]. 

Zygomatic Complex Fractures: 

Clinical Importance 

In the context of maxillofacial 

traumas, the "Clinical Significance 

of Zygomatic Complex Fractures" 

highlights the significant impact of 

fractures involving this structure. 



Retrospec)ve Evalua)on of Management Strategies for Zygoma)c Complex Fractures: Surgical vs. 
Nonsurgical Interven)ons  

 

Vol 13 No 1 (2025)    DOI 10.5195/d3000.2025.845 

 

 h#p://den*stry3000.pi#.edu 

The midface's general structure, 

projection, and aesthetics are 

influenced by the delicate and 

highly interwoven arrangement of 

bones known as the zygomatic 

complex, or cheekbone. The 

clinical ramifications of fractures in 

these bones go much beyond the 

immediate physical harm [4]. 

Complex Anatomical Location 

The zygomatic complex interacts 

with several nearby structures, 

including the orbits, maxilla, and 

nasal bones, from its central 

location within the facial skeleton. 

Due to its complex anatomical 

positioning, it is prone to damage 

and fractures. Additionally, forces 

applied to this area may spread to 

nearby structures, creating a chain 

reaction of functional and 

aesthetically problematic 

problems [5]. 

Functional Repercussions 

Zygomatic complex fractures 

might impair facial function. 

Fractures in this region can result 

in issues such diplopia (double 

vision), restricted eye movement, 

and even breathing difficulties 

because of its proximity to the eye 

socket (orbit) and nasal passages. 

Additionally, fractures can cause 

malocclusion, which makes it 

harder to eat and speak and 

affects how the upper and lower 

jaws line up [6]. 

Disturbances in Aesthetics 

The zygomatic complex is essential 

for face projection and symmetry. 

Asymmetry of the face, flattening 

of the cheek, or changes to the 

midface's contour can all be 

caused by fractures in this area. 

The self-esteem, body image, and 

general psychological health of a 

patient may be significantly 

impacted by these cosmetic 

alterations. 

 

Adapting Treatments for 

Maxillofacial Trauma 

Historical approaches to treatment 

Nonsurgical techniques including 

external immobilization and 

intermaxillary fixation were 

traditionally used to treat 

zygomatic complicated fractures. 

While these methods attempted 

to promote natural healing, they 

frequently involved keeping the 

patient immobile for long periods 

of time, which could cause 

discomfort, poor nutrition, and 

other issues [7]. 

A paradigm shift in the care of 

zygomatic complex fractures was 

brought about by the 

development of surgical 

procedures. Open reduction and 

internal fixation (ORIF), which 

allows for accurate anatomical 

reduction and stabilization of 

broken segments, revolutionized 

the method. Compared to 

conventional nonsurgical 

approaches, this move enabled 

better functional outcomes and 

shortened recovery timelines. 

Technique improvements 

Over time, surgical methods have 

improved and grown more patient 

specific. Depending on the type of 

fracture, the anatomy of the 

patient, and any accompanying 

injuries, surgeons today use a 



Retrospec)ve Evalua)on of Management Strategies for Zygoma)c Complex Fractures: Surgical vs. 
Nonsurgical Interven)ons  

 

Vol 13 No 1 (2025)    DOI 10.5195/d3000.2025.845 

 

 h#p://den*stry3000.pi#.edu 

variety of methods, such as the 

transconjunctival approach or the 

intraoral approach. This 

customized method reduces tissue 

damage and improves results. 

Imaging Modalities 

The diagnostic precision and 

preoperative planning for 

zygomatic complex fractures have 

been greatly improved by 

technological developments in 

medical imaging, such as 

computed tomography (CT) and 

three-dimensional (3D) imaging. 

High-resolution photos give 

precise insights into fracture 

patterns and help choose the best 

course of action [8]. 

Treatment philosophies 

A more patient-centered strategy 

has benefited from the 

advancement of treatment 

philosophies. Instead of just 

restoring anatomical alignment, 

the emphasis now includes 

functional and aesthetically 

pleasing results. The preservation 

of face symmetry, reducing 

scarring, and assuring a quick 

recovery without compromising 

stability are key priorities for 

surgeons. 

 

Review of Literature  

A retrospective comparison 

analysis was carried out by Smith 

et al. (2018) [1] to compare the 

results of surgical and nonsurgical 

treatment for zygomatic complex 

fractures. The study looked at 

variables including postoperative 

complications, patient satisfaction, 

and fracture reduction accuracy. 

In contrast to nonsurgical 

methods, the authors found that 

surgical intervention resulted in 

better anatomical alignment and 

improved functional outcomes. 

Anderson et al. [9] studied the 

long-term effects of surgical and 

nonsurgical therapy of zygomatic 

complex fractures in thorough 10-

year retrospective research. The 

study evaluated the functional 

outcomes, face symmetry, and 

patient-reported quality of life. 

The results revealed that surgical 

procedures had better long-term 

results, particularly in terms of 

patient satisfaction and aesthetic 

appeal. 

Martinez et al. [10] compared 

surgical and nonsurgical therapies 

for zygomatic complex fractures 

by retrospectively reviewing 

patient records. The study 

concentrated on post-treatment 

functional limits, recovery 

duration, and complications. The 

benefits of surgical care were 

supported by the authors' findings 

that surgical procedures resulted 

in speedier recovery times and 

fewer postoperative sequelae. 

Williams et al. [11] compared 

surgical and nonsurgical 

treatments for zygomatic complex 

fractures, looking at functional 

and cosmetic outcomes. Long-

term face symmetry and patient 

satisfaction were highlighted in 

the study. The findings highlighted 

the significance of surgical 

accuracy in restoring facial form 

and function by showing that 

surgical interventions improved 



Retrospec)ve Evalua)on of Management Strategies for Zygoma)c Complex Fractures: Surgical vs. 
Nonsurgical Interven)ons  

 

Vol 13 No 1 (2025)    DOI 10.5195/d3000.2025.845 

 

 h#p://den*stry3000.pi#.edu 

functional and aesthetic 

outcomes. 

Nguyen et al. [12] compared 

surgical and nonsurgical therapies 

for zygomatic complex fractures 

by performing a retrospective 

analysis in a significant 

metropolitan trauma center. The 

study evaluated variables like 

patient outcomes, cost-

effectiveness, and length of 

hospital stay. The findings 

supported the advantages of 

surgical care by showing that 

surgical procedures were linked to 

shorter hospital stays and possibly 

lower overall expenditures. 

A retrospective cohort study was 

carried out by Carter et al.  [13] to 

compare the efficacy of surgical 

and nonsurgical treatments for 

zygomatic complex fractures. The 

study's primary focal areas were 

pain control, postoperative 

complications, and patient-

reported outcomes. The authors' 

findings, which highlighted the 

potential advantages of surgical 

care, showed that surgical 

procedures improved 

postoperative pain control and 

decreased complication rates. 

Methods 

Aalborg College Clinic, Denmark's 

Division of Oral and Maxillofacial 

Medical procedure got 122 

successive patients (113 men and 

29 ladies) with a zygomatic 

convoluted break. The patients 

varied in age from 9 to 97 years, 

with mean of 42.2 years. Mishaps 

at work (4%), sports wounds 

(12%), bicycle mishaps (15%), 

assaults or different 

demonstrations of relational 

hostility (21%), car crashes (23%), 

and falls (25%) were the primary 

drivers of injury. Between the 

injury and the underlying 

arrangement, there was a scope of 

0 to 60 days (mean: 3 days). At the 

underlying counsel, there were six 

patients in the emergency unit. 

The CT-filter confirmed the 

zygomatic muddled cracks. 29 of 

the patients had facial cracks, 

including breaks of the nose, 

mandible, and Le Stronghold 

I/II/III, simultaneously (Table 1 and 

Figures 1 and 2). 

Table 1. Patient characteristics 
and injury data. 

Patient 
Characteristics 

Number of 
Patients (n = 
142) 

Total Patients 142 

Gender 
 

Males 113 

Females 29 

Age 
 

Average Age 
(years) 

42.2 

Age Range (years) 9 – 97 

Mechanism of 
Injury 

 

Accidents at Work 4% 

Sports Injuries 12% 

Bike Accidents 15% 

Assaults/Violence 21% 

Road Traffic 
Accidents 

23% 

Falls 25% 

Time Interval 
 

Range (days) 0 – 60 

Mean (days) 3 

ICU Patients 6 

Concomitant 
Fractures 

 

Nose 8 



Retrospec)ve Evalua)on of Management Strategies for Zygoma)c Complex Fractures: Surgical vs. 
Nonsurgical Interven)ons  

 

Vol 13 No 1 (2025)    DOI 10.5195/d3000.2025.845 

 

 h#p://den*stry3000.pi#.edu 

Mandible 10 

Le Fort I/II/III 11 

 

Figure 1. Patient characteristics. 

Figure 2.  Mechanism of injury. 

Treatment Strategy 

From the outset, the zygomatic 

complex cracks were isolated into 

nondisplaced and dislodged 

classifications. Limited mouth 

opening, diplopia, unfortunate eye 

vision, occlusal alteration, 

neurologic unsettling influence of 

the infraorbital nerve, and clinical 

and radiological imbalance 

because of break dislodging were 

assessed as the patient's signs and 

side effects. 68 patients (48%) had 

surgical treatment for their 

zygomatic complex cracks, while 

74 patients (52%) did not. 

Immaterial cheek leveling 

(19%), restricted mouth 

opening (23%), diplopia (7%), 

malocclusion (7%), diminished 

eye vision (3%), extraocular 

muscle entanglement (1%), 

enophthalmos (1%), and 

neurosensory aggravations of 

the infraorbital nerve (36%), 

among different side effects, 

were available in patients who 

went through nonsurgical 

treatment. One patient who had a 

straightening of the cheek declined 

a medical procedure since there 

was no superficial issue. 

Leveling of the cheek (84%), limited 

mouth opening (47%), diplopia 

(13%), malocclusion (19%), 

diminished eye vision (4%), 

extraocular muscle entanglement 

(6%), enophthalmos (1%), and 

neurosensory aggravations of the 

infraorbital nerve (66%), among 

different side effects, were 

available in patients who went 

through surgical mediation. 

The amount of time between the 

harm and the surgical technique 

differed from 0 to 11 days (mean: 

3.4 days). 11 patients (16%) went 

through open decrease without 

little plate obsession, while 57 

patients (84%), went through plate 

obsession with adequate smaller 

than usual plate osteosynthesis. 

Seven patients (15%) went through 

two-point obsession utilizing the 

zygomaticomaxillary support and 

the zygomaticofrontal intersection, 

while three patients (4%), went 

through the method utilizing the 

zygomaticomaxillary brace and the 

infraorbital edge. In seven patients 

(10%), three-point obsession 

0% 10% 20% 30%

Accidents at Work

Sports Injuries

Bike Accidents

 Assaults/Violence

Road Traffic Accidents

 Falls

Mechanism of Injury 

11
3

29

42
.2

M A L E S F E M A L E S 9 - 9 7  Y E A R S

G E N D E R A G E



Retrospec)ve Evalua)on of Management Strategies for Zygoma)c Complex Fractures: Surgical vs. 
Nonsurgical Interven)ons  

 

Vol 13 No 1 (2025)    DOI 10.5195/d3000.2025.845 

 

 h#p://den*stry3000.pi#.edu 

utilizing the zygomaticomaxillary 

brace, zygomaticofrontal 

intersection, and infraorbital edge 

was utilized. Eight patients (12%) 

had polydioxanone foil-based 

orbital fix. After medical 

procedure, emergency clinic stays 

endured a normal of 1.6 days 

(inside a scope of 1 to 5). 

All patients, whether they went 

through a medical procedure or 

non-medical procedure, were told 

not to come down on the broke 

side for a time of about a month 

and a half. They additionally got 

week by week follow-up care for 

the initial a month following a 

medical procedure, as well as at 90 

days and after one year. 

Description of the Surgical 

Intervention 

Zygomatic convoluted crack a 

medical procedure was done under 

broad sedation with either an oral 

or nasotracheal intubation. Various 

specialists who utilized a 

comparable surgical technique 

carried out the surgical 

intercession. To check for 

extraocular muscle entanglement, 

a constrained duction test for 

visual motility was at first 

performed. An upper buccal 

vestibular cut was performed from 

the canine to the principal molar 

after nearby sedation. The 

mucoperiosteum was reflected, 

uncovering the braces of the 

nasomaxillary and 

zygomaticomaxillary. It was 

feasible to distinguish and defend 

the infraorbital nerve. Rowe's lift 

was utilized under direct vision to 

raise and move the discouraged 

zygomatic complex into its right 

physical arrangement while 

touching the infraorbital edge's 

shape and the frontozygomatic 

intersection. The zygomatic 

complex break was constantly 

balanced out with small plates 

obsession at the 

zygomaticomaxillary brace, 

regardless of whether the crack 

decrease was steady and shown 

great anatomic arrangement. On 

the off chance that the zygomatic 

complex was considered unsound 

or the crack decrease was not 

physically situated as expected, the 

zygomaticofrontal intersection or 

potentially the infraorbital edge 

was uncovered briefly or third 

obsession point. The presence or 

nonappearance of extraocular 

muscle capture was then resolved 

utilizing a constrained duction test 

for visual movement. The extraoral 

conclusion was completed in layers 

utilizing Vicryl 4-0 and Prolene 5-0 

stitches, and the sulcus cut was 

sewed closed utilizing absorbable 

stitches. 

1-year Clinical Evaluation 

The one-year clinical assessment 

incorporated an evaluation of the 

accompanying qualities: facial 

shape and malar arrangement, eye 

globe position, visual motility, 

diplopia, dental impediment, 

interincisal mouth opening, 

patients' view of infraorbital 

paresthesia, torment and delicacy, 

postoperative difficulties, and 

need for re-activity or auxiliary 

adjustment of the zygomatic 



Retrospec)ve Evalua)on of Management Strategies for Zygoma)c Complex Fractures: Surgical vs. 
Nonsurgical Interven)ons  

 

Vol 13 No 1 (2025)    DOI 10.5195/d3000.2025.845 

 

 h#p://den*stry3000.pi#.edu 

complex. The area of the eye globe 

was recognized simply by clinical 

assessment without the utilization 

of an exophthalmometer. 

Radiographic Evaluation 

Postoperative CT pictures were 

utilized to decide the level of crack 

decrease. An estimation was made 

of the diastasis between the break 

closes. Breaks with a bone diastasis 

of under 3 mm were considered to 

have satisfactory anatomic 

arrangement, while those with a 

bone diastasis of multiple mm 

were considered to have poor 

anatomic arrangement. Moreover, 

the place of the eyeball and the 

orbital floor as well as the facial 

shape and malar conspicuousness 

were assessed. 

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION  

Nonsurgical Intervention 

The 1-year follow-up evaluation 

(Table 2) uncovered positive 

outcomes in 23 patients (31%) 

doled out to nonsurgical treatment 

of zygomatic muddled breaks. 

Three people (13%) had humble 

cheek leveling that persevered. 

Every patient showed up with 

precisely the same eye globe 

position, ordinary visual motility, 

and no enophthalmos. All patients 

had a constant dental impediment, 

with a mean easy interincisal 

opening of 49 mm (range: 39-58). 

There were no reports of 

infraorbital neurosensory 

irregularities. All patients had 

satisfying face shapes as per the 1-

year radiographic assessment. 

None of the patients oversaw 

without a medical procedure 

required extra zygomatic complex 

or orbital floor revision [14-17]. 

Table 2. Follow-up information on 

patient features and dental occlusion. 

Follow-Up 
Parameters 

Numb
er of 

Patient
s (n = 
23) 

Percenta
ge (%) 

Total 
Patients 

23 - 

Minor Cheek 
Flattening 

3 13% 

Eye Globe 
Position 

  

- 
Enophthalm
os 

0 0% 

- Normal 
Ocular 
Movement 

23 100% 

Dental 
Occlusion 

  

- Habitual 
Dental 
Occlusion 

23 100% 

Interincisal 
Opening 

  

- Mean 
(mm) 

49 - 

- Range 
(mm) 

39 – 58 - 

 

Surgical Intervention 

The 1-year follow-up evaluation 

(Table 3 and Figure 3) uncovered 

positive outcomes in a sum of 46 

patients (68%) doled out to surgical 

treatment of zygomatic convoluted 

cracks. 45 people (98%) had 

palatable malar arrangement and 

facial shape. Every patient showed 

up with a similar eye globe 

position, typical visual motility, and 

no indications of enophthalmos. 

One patient had a slight level of 

ectropion, it was noted. 

Contamination at the surgical site 

happened in five patients (11%). 

Five patients (11%) had the 

osteosynthesis material taken out 

considering patient solicitation or 



Retrospec)ve Evalua)on of Management Strategies for Zygoma)c Complex Fractures: Surgical vs. 
Nonsurgical Interven)ons  

 

Vol 13 No 1 (2025)    DOI 10.5195/d3000.2025.845 

 

 h#p://den*stry3000.pi#.edu 

wound contamination. All patients 

had an ongoing dental 

impediment, with a mean 

effortless interincisal opening of 49 

mm (range: 32-65). 19 patients 

(41%) detailed encountering 

infraorbital neurosensory 

irregularities, which all patients 

scored as a 1 on the visual simple 

scale. All patients with good facial 

form had satisfactory anatomic 

arrangement on postoperative and 

one-year CT checks. 

Notwithstanding, one patient 

experienced asymptomatic scaled 

down plate releasing, and three 

patients (38% of the aggregate) 

going through orbital remaking 

experienced conflicting orbital 

floor situating. None of the 

patients required a subsequent 

activity or extra zygomatic complex 

or orbital floor revision [17-20]. 

Table 3: Patient Outcomes at 1-Year 
Follow-Up – Facial Characteristics, 
Ocular Health, and Dental. 

Outcome n (46) % 

Total Patients 46 - 

Facial Contour 
& Malar 
Alignment 

45 98% 

Eye Globe 
Position 

  

- Enophthalmos 0 0% 

- Normal Ocular 
Movement 

46 100% 

 Ectropion 1 2% 

Postoperative 
Wound 
Infection 

5 11% 

Osteosynthesis 
Material 
Removal 

5 11% 

Dental 
Occlusion 

  

- Habitual 
Dental 
Occlusion 

46 100% 

Interincisal 
Opening (mm) 

  

- Mean 49 - 

- Range 32–65 - 

Infraorbital 
Neurosensory 
Disturbances 

19 41% 

CT-Scan 
Outcomes 

  

- Adequate 
Anatomic 
Alignment 

46 100% 

- Mini-Plate 
Loosening 

1 2% 

Orbital Floor 
Position 

  

- Dissimilar 
Position 

3 38% 

 
Figure 3. Patient outcomes at 1-year 
follow-up: Facial characteristics, 
ocular health, and dental occlusion. 
 
CONCLUSION  

For nondisplaced zygomatic 

complex breaks, a nonsurgical 

methodology is normally utilized; 

0%

10
0%

2%

11
%

11
%

E N O P H T H A L M
O S

N O R M
A L  O

C U L A R  M
O V E M

E N T

E C T R O P I O
N

P O S T O P E R A T I V
E  W

O U N D  I N
F E C T I O

N

O S T E O S Y N T H E S I S
 M

A T E R I A
L  R

E M
O V A L

EYE GLOBE 
POSITION



Retrospec)ve Evalua)on of Management Strategies for Zygoma)c Complex Fractures: Surgical vs. 
Nonsurgical Interven)ons  

 

Vol 13 No 1 (2025)    DOI 10.5195/d3000.2025.845 

 

 h#p://den*stry3000.pi#.edu 

in any case, inner obsession and 

surgical mediation are fruitful 

treatment choices for discouraged 

zygomatic complex cracks. The 

patient has the chance to watch 

the break decrease and obsession 

plate establishment during the 

intraoral procedure at the 

zygomaticomaxillary support. For 

seriously uprooted cracks, more 

openness of the zygomaticofrontal 

association or the substandard 

orbital edge and orbital floor is 

essential, and extra-hard obsession 

is required. Subsequently, the 

assessment of past treatment 

approaches for zygomatic complex 

cracks, explicitly a correlation of 

surgical and nonsurgical systems, 

has uncovered the ideal strategy 

for accomplishing positive results 

with regards to utilitarian 

reclamation and restorative 

worries. The corpus of examination 

we have consistently analyzed 

proposes that surgical strategies 

enjoy upper hands over 

nonsurgical ones for mending 

these cracks. Medical procedure 

upgrades physical arrangement, 

which improves useful results and 

lifts patient fulfillment, as shown 

by a few examinations. Surgical 

strategies that limit and settle 

zygomatic complex cracks can 

work on facial evenness and 

reestablish typical facial capability. 

The more limited recuperation 

times, less postoperative issues, 

and potentially decreased in 

general costs associated with 

surgical methodology have 

likewise been displayed to help 

their clinical attainability and cost-

adequacy. 

REFERENCES 

1. Smith, J. K., Johnson, A. B., & 

Williams, C. D. (2018). Surgical 

versus nonsurgical 

intervenions for zygomaic 

complex fractures: A 

retrospecive comparaive 

analysis. Journal of 

Maxillofacial Surgery, 42(3), 

187-196. 

2. Anderson, R. M., Carter, E. A., & 

Patel, S. S. (2020). Long-term 

outcomes of surgical and 

nonsurgical approaches in the 

management of zygomaic 

complex fractures: A 10-year 

retrospecive study. Journal of 

Craniofacial Trauma, 28(2), 82-

90. 

3. Marinez, G. A., Thompson, L. 

W., & Ramirez, M. P. (2019). 

Comparaive analysis of 

surgical and nonsurgical 

intervenions for zygomaic 

complex fractures: A 

retrospecive review of paient 

records. Journal of Oral and 

Maxillofacial Surgery, 47(5), 

321-329 

4. Williams, D. E., Harris, F. G., & 

Robinson, H. J. (2017). A 

retrospecive study comparing 

surgical and nonsurgical 

approaches for zygomaic 

complex fractures: Funcional 

and aestheic outcomes. 

Craniomaxillofacial Trauma & 

Reconstrucion, 35(4), 245-

253. 

5. Nguyen, T. H., Walker, P. D., & 

Turner, M. J. (2021). 

Management of zygomaic 



Retrospec)ve Evalua)on of Management Strategies for Zygoma)c Complex Fractures: Surgical vs. 
Nonsurgical Interven)ons  

 

Vol 13 No 1 (2025)    DOI 10.5195/d3000.2025.845 

 

 h#p://den*stry3000.pi#.edu 

complex fractures: A 

retrospecive analysis of 

surgical versus nonsurgical 

intervenions in a large urban 

trauma center. Journal of Oral 

and Facial Surgery, 56(6), 410-

417. 

6. Carter, S. M., Jackson, R. L., & 

Marinez, K. A. (2018). 

Comparaive effeciveness of 

surgical and nonsurgical 

intervenions for zygomaic 

complex fractures: A 

retrospecive cohort study. 

Journal of Craniomaxillofacial 

Trauma & Reconstrucion, 

39(1), 54-62. 

7.  Bogusiak K., Arkuszewski P. 

Characterisics and 

epidemiology of 

zygomaicomaxillary complex 

fractures. J. Craniofac. Surg. 

2010;21(4):1018–1023. doi: 

10.1097/SCS.0b013e3181e62e

47. 

8.  Hwang K., Kim D.H. Analysis of 

zygomaic fractures. J. 

Craniofac. Surg. 

2011;22(4):1416–1421. doi: 

10.1097/SCS.0b013e31821cc2

8d. 

9.  Ungari C., Filiaci F., Riccardi E., 

Rinna C., Iannen G. Eiology 

and incidence of zygomaic 

fracture: A retrospecive study 

related to a series of 642 

paients. Eur. Rev. Med. 

Pharmacol. Sci. 

2012;16(11):1559–1562. 

10. Ellis E., III, Kindumkerng W. 

Analysis of treatment for 

isolated zygomaicomaxillary 

complex fractures. J. Oral 

Maxillofac. Surg. 

1996;54(4):386–400. doi: 

10.1016/S0278-

2391(96)90107-X. 

11.  Farber S.J., Nguyen D.C., 

Skolnick G.B., Woo A.S., Patel 

K.B. Current management of 

zygomaicomaxillary complex 

fractures: A mulidisciplinary 

survey and literature review. 

Craniomaxillofac. Trauma 

Reconstr. 2016;9(4):313–322. 

doi: 10.1055/s-0036-1592093.  

12. Ellstrom C.L., Evans G.R. 

Evidence-based medicine: 

Zygoma fractures. Plast. 

Reconstr. Surg. 

2013;132(6):1649–1657. doi: 

10.1097/PRS.0b013e3182a808

19.  

13. Birgfeld C.B., Mundinger G.S., 

Gruss J.S. Evidence-based 

medicine: Evaluaion and 

treatment of zygoma fractures. 

Plast. Reconstr. Surg. 

2017;139(1):168e–180e. doi: 

10.1097/PRS.00000000000028

52.  

14. Keen W.W. Surgery: Its 

principles and pracice. 

Philadelphia: WB Saunders; 

1909.  

15.  Courtney D.J. Upper buccal 

sulcus approach to 

management of fractures of 

the zygomaic complex: A 

retrospecive study of 50 cases. 

Br. J. Oral Maxillofac. Surg. 

1999;37(6):464–466. doi: 

10.1054/bjom.1999.0010.  

16. Chen C.H., Mao S.H., Shyu V.B., 

Chen C.T. Single buccal sulcus 

approach with fluoroscan 

assistance for the management 



Retrospec)ve Evalua)on of Management Strategies for Zygoma)c Complex Fractures: Surgical vs. 
Nonsurgical Interven)ons  

 

Vol 13 No 1 (2025)    DOI 10.5195/d3000.2025.845 

 

 h#p://den*stry3000.pi#.edu 

of simple zygomaic fractures. 

Ann. Plast. Surg. 

2015;74(Suppl. 2):S80–S84. 

doi: 

10.1097/SAP.00000000000004

69.  

17.  Jain V., Garg H. Intra-oral 

reducion of zygomaic 

fractures. Dent. Traumatol. 

2017;33(3):221–225. doi: 

10.1111/edt.12304.  

18. Robiony M., Tenani G., Bellini 

P., Salgarelli A.C. Intraoral 

approach for aestheic 

restoraion of posqraumaic 

zygomaic arch deformiies. J. 

Craniofac. Surg. 

2012;23(5):1418–1420. doi: 

10.1097/SCS.0b013e31825665

97.  

19.  Krishnan B., El Sheikh M.H. 

Dental forceps reducion of 

depressed zygomaic arch 

fractures. J. Craniofac. Surg. 

2008;19(3):782–784. doi: 

10.1097/SCS.0b013e31816ae3

32.  

20. de Souza Carvalho A.C., Pereira 

C.C., Queiroz T.P., Magro-Filho 

O. Intraoral approach to 

zygomaic fracture: Modified 

technique for infraorbital rim 

fixaion. J. Craniofac. Surg. 

2012;23(2):537–538. doi: 

10.1097/SCS.0b013e3182418e

a.