Introduction
Recent studies have shown that delays in the treatment of mandibular fractures are not associated with adverse outcomes, and this has challenged the common practice of recommending treatment within 24 hours. However, the BAOMS Trauma Special Interest Group advocates early operation to facilitate prompt discharge. ​We aim to analyse the time from admission to operation of mandibular fractures and identify any reasons for delays.

Method
Retrospective data was collected from records of all admitted mandible fractures over a 3 month period between May and July in 2022, 2023 and 2025 from a major trauma hospital. Time from admission to operation was measured and compared to the standard that 100% of mandibular fractures will undergo open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) within 48 hours of admission. Data collected also included: patient demographics, other injuries, theatre type, complications and discharge time.

Results
77% (10/13), 79% (15/19) and 76% (13/17) of mandible fractures underwent ORIF within 48 hours of admission over the same 3 month period in 2022, 2023 and 2025 respectively. The mean, median and range of time to undergo ORIF from admission for: 2022 was 36.5 hours, 27 hours, 11-100 hours respectively; 2023 was 40.4 hours, 19 hours, 0-282 hours respectively; 2025 was 26.7 hours, 19 hours, 5-63 hours respectively. There were 0, 4 and 6 post-operative complications over the 3 month period in 2022, 2023 and 2025 respectively.

Conclusion
The set standard was not met and the proportion of mandible fractures that underwent operation within 48 hours of admission over the years is consistently around 76-79%. Unlike previous years, 3 of the cases that underwent operation over 48 hours in 2025 had post-operative complications. We will continue to monitor to see if a dedicated trauma list would be indicated.

Introduction:
Dysplasia and oral potentially malignant disorders (OPMDs) of the oral cavity often require surgical resection to prevent malignant transformation. These lesions are frequently left to heal by secondary intention, exposing patients to discomfort and an increased risk of post-operative infection. Dermal matrices offer a promising reconstructive alternative, providing biocompatibility and favourable healing outcomes. However, their clinical use in this specific context has not yet been comprehensively reviewed. This scoping review aims to systematically map and critically appraise the current evidence on the use of dermal matrices in reconstructive surgery following resection of dysplastic lesions and OPMDs of the oral cavity, and to identify current evidence, innovation, and gaps in knowledge.

Methods:
A scoping review was conducted following the PRISMA-ScR guidelines. The electronic databases PubMed, Scopus and Medline were searched without date restrictions. Grey literature was also explored via Google Scholar. Two reviewers independently screened the articles, with discrepancies resolved by a third reviewer. Data were extracted on factors such as study design, type of dermal matrix used, surgical outcomes and disease recurrence.

Results:
From an initial yield of 6229 titles, 25 studies met the inclusion criteria. These involved various dermal matrix types, including acellular human dermal matrices and bovine-derived collagen scaffolds. Most studies reported satisfactory integration and minimal complications. However, heterogeneity in study design, outcome measures, and follow-up limited direct comparisons. Few studies specifically addressed long-term recurrence or malignant transformation post-reconstruction.

Conclusion:
Dermal matrices may represent a viable and increasingly utilised option for reconstructing defects following the resection of dysplasia and OPMDs of the oral cavity. While this review highlights early successes, it also underscores key limitations in the existing literature and calls for targeted research to validate dermal matrices as a standard reconstructive strategy in oral oncology.