Department-Specific Distribution of Facial Trauma Cases Managed by Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery and Plastic Surgery: A Ten-Year Single-Center Retrospective Observational Study

Background: Facial trauma is frequently managed by multiple surgical specialties, but department-specific case distribution within a single institution has not been well characterized. This study aimed to describe the distribution of facial trauma cases managed by Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery (OMFS) and Plastic Surgery (PS) from 2016 to May 2025 and to evaluate department-specific patterns according to injury type, anatomical site, demographic characteristics, and temporal changes during the COVID-19 period. Methods: This single-center retrospective observational study included facial trauma cases managed by OMFS or PS after presentation to the emergency department at Chosun University Hospital between 1 January 2016 and 31 May 2025. Aggregated count data on demographic characteristics, fracture sites, laceration sites, injury mechanisms, dental trauma diagnoses, and annual case numbers were analyzed using cross-tabulation and chi-square tests. Results: A total of 6611 facial fracture patients and 17,133 facial laceration cases were analyzed. PS managed a larger number of facial fracture and laceration cases overall, whereas OMFS-managed cases were more concentrated in mandibular fractures and dental trauma. Sex distribution did not differ significantly between departments (p = 0.126), whereas age distribution differed significantly (p < 0.001). The annual distributions of facial fracture and laceration cases also differed between departments (p = 0.003 and p < 0.001, respectively). Zygomatic arch fractures represented the largest midfacial fracture-site category managed by PS, whereas condylar and angle fractures were the two most frequently recorded mandibular fracture-site categories managed by OMFS. Conclusions: This study describes department-specific distributions of facial trauma cases in a single tertiary institution. The findings should be interpreted as reflecting institutional case routing and documentation patterns rather than intrinsic differences between specialties. These data may support local audit of department-managed case distributions and generate hypotheses for future multicenter research.