Evidence Hub

From Restrictions to Reopening: Changing Epidemiology of Midfacial Fractures After the COVID-19 Pandemic

A. Aydin, Lawik Revend, T. Beikler, A. Henningsen, Ralf Smeets, Oliver Schuck, Manfred Giese, Doha Revend et al.

Journal of Stomatology Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, 2026

156 participants

Abstract

INTRODUCTION

The COVID-19 pandemic profoundly affected trauma epidemiology, but data on post-pandemic maxillofacial trauma remain limited. This study compared midfacial fracture epidemiology between intra-pandemic and post-pandemic periods at a tertiary maxillofacial trauma center.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This retrospective cohort study included 156 adults with non-nasal midfacial fractures treated intra-pandemic (February 2020 - January 2021; n = 57) or post-pandemic (February 2023 - January 2024; n = 99). Demographics, trauma etiology and context, fracture patterns, associated injuries, temporal distribution, and treatment parameters were compared.

RESULTS

Falls (66.7 % vs. 20.2 %; q < 0.001), accidents at home (56.1 % vs. 15.2 %; q < 0.001), and syncope-related trauma (17.5 % vs. 5.1 %; q = 0.034) decreased post-pandemic, whereas alcohol-associated trauma increased (10.5 % vs. 27.3 %; q = 0.034). Differences in falls, accidents at home, and alcohol-associated trauma remained significant after adjustment for age and sex. Road-traffic, interpersonal-violence, sports, and e-scooter injuries increased numerically but none of these differences were statistically significant after FDR adjustment. The overall time-of-day distribution differed between cohorts (p < 0.001), with proportionally fewer morning and more evening/night injuries post-pandemic. Time to presentation and surgery decreased post-pandemic (respectively p = 0.008, p = 0.001), while no statistically significant…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a cohort study, done in people. Its evidence level is 3 of 5 (Moderate · trial / cohort / secondary analysis). Trials without a large randomized design, cohorts and secondary analyses give moderate evidence. Reported size: 156 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free