Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Background: Epidemiological data on maxillofacial fractures in Chile are scarce and heterogeneous, and no prior study has applied the AO CMF Level 2 classification. Methods: This is a retrospective study of patients with maxillofacial fractures treated at a public referral hospital in Santiago, Chile (2020–2024). All fractures were confirmed on computed tomography and classified using AO CMF Level 2. Isolated nasal fractures managed exclusively by otolaryngology were excluded. Predictors of surgical treatment and of multifocal fractures were assessed by binary logistic regression. Results: A total of 479 patients sustained 1359 fracture sites (mean 2.84; 66.4% with ≥2 fracture sites). Males predominated (75.8%) and were younger than females (36 vs. 63 years; p < 0.001). Interpersonal violence was the leading etiology (44.1%), followed by falls (29.9%) and road traffic accidents (17.7%). Midface, skull base and cranial vault fractures comprised 85.0%, the intermediate central midface being most affected (17.4%). The surgical rate was 33.4%. Multifocal fractures (OR 3.28; 95% CI 2.03–5.28) and a non-linear age effect (peak 27–30 years; p < 0.001) were independently associated with surgical treatment; male sex was associated with multifocal fractures (OR 1.95; 95% CI 1.19–3.17), although this model explained little of the variance in fracture multiplicity. Conclusions: This first Chilean application of AO CMF Level 2 describes interpersonal violence predominance and an age–sex interaction in this cohort and provides a standardized single-center reference dataset for multicenter comparison.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Cortez et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: