Top

Published in:

01-06-2019 | Original Article

Unilateral mandibular condylar process fractures: a retrospective clinical comparison of open versus closed treatment

Authors: Renata Porto Stypulkowski, Aline Gama Santos, Elvidio de Paula e Silva, Cícero André da Costa Moraes, Everton Luis Santos da Rosa

Published in: Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery | Issue 2/2019

Abstract

Purpose

To retrospectively compare the clinical outcomes of closed treatment (closed reduction and intermaxillary fixation) with open treatment (open reduction and internal fixation with miniplates and screws) of unilateral mandibular condylar process fractures.

Methods

Adult patients with unilateral condylar fractures treated from January 2011 to July 2013 in the Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery Service at the Base Hospital of the Federal District, Brazil, were invited to participate. Those who agreed to participate were scheduled for clinical evaluation, which consisted of a subjective questionnaire (completed by the examiner) and an objective physical examination of the temporomandibular joints and mandibular range of motion. The following variables were analyzed: mouth opening; lateral excursions of the mandible; presence of clicking; mandibular function impairment (speech, chewing); and occlusion.

Results

Seventeen patients (15 men and 2 women) attended the scheduled appointment: 9 had received open treatment (surgical) and 8 had received closed treatment (nonsurgical). Patients were evaluated at 6–30 months postoperatively. Only maximum mouth opening (p = 0.044) and maximum lateral excursion to the unaffected side (p = 0.030) showed a significant difference between the closed and open treatment groups.

Conclusions

Our findings are consistent with those reported in the literature as both methods (closed and open treatment) produced satisfactory outcomes. The only between-group difference was the amount of maximum mouth opening and lateral excursion to the unaffected side. Further randomized studies with a larger number of patients with condylar process fractures are needed to verify the results obtained with each treatment.

Montovani JC, Campos LMP, Gomes MA, Moraes VRC, Ferreira FD, Nogueira EA (2006) Etiology and incidence facial fractures in adults and children: experience in 513 cases. Rev Bras Otorrinolaringol 72:235–241CrossRef

Biglioli F, Colletti G (2008) Mini-retromandibular approach to condylar fractures. J Cranio-Maxillofac Surg 38(7):378–383CrossRef

Andrade Filho EF, Martins DMFS, Neto MS, Toledo Junior CS, Pereira MD, Ferreira LM (2003) Fractures of the mandibular condyle: retrospective analysis of clinical indications and treatment. Rev Assoc Med Bras 49(1):54–59CrossRefPubMed

Choi K-Y, Yang J-D, Chung H-Y, Cho B-C (2012) Current concepts in the mandibular condyle fracture management part II: open reduction versus closed reduction. Arch Plast Surg 39:301–308CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Landes CA, Lipphardt R (2005) Prospective evaluation of a pragmatic treatment rationale: open reduction and internal fixation of displaced and dislocated condyle and condylar head fractures and closed reduction of non-displaced, non-dislocated fractures Part I: condyle and subcondylar fractures. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 34(8):859–870CrossRefPubMed

Vesnaver A, Ahcan U, Rozman J (2012) Evaluation of surgical treatment in mandibular condyle fractures. J Craniomaxillofac Surg 40:647–653CrossRefPubMed

Ellis E III, Throckmorton GS, Palmieri C (2000) Open treatment of condylar process fractures: assessment of adequacy of repositioning and maintenance of stability. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 58(1):27–34CrossRefPubMed

Worsaae N, Thorn JJ (1994) Surgical versus nonsurgical treatment of unilateral dislocated low subcondylar fractures: a clinical study of 52 cases. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 52:353–360CrossRefPubMed

Ellis E III, McFadden D, Simon P, Throckmorton G (2000) Surgical complications with open treatment of mandibular condylar process fractures. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 58:950–958CrossRefPubMed

10.

Yang W-G, Chen C-T, Tsay P-K, Chen Y-R (2002) Functional results of unilateral mandibular condylar process fractures after open and closed treatment. J Trauma 52:498–503PubMed

11.

Gupta M, Iyer N, Das D, Nagaraj J (2012) Analysis of different treatment protocols for fractures of condylar process of mandible. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 70:83–91CrossRefPubMed

12.

Palmieri C, Ellis E III, Throckmorton G (1999) Mandibular motion after closed and open treatment of unilateral mandibular condylar process fractures. J Oral Maxiliofac Surg 57:764–775CrossRef

13.

Ellis E III, Throckmorton GS (2005) Treatment of mandibular condylar process fractures: biological considerations. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 63:115–134CrossRefPubMed

14.

Sforza C, Ugolini A, Sozzi D, Galante D, Mapelli A, Bozzetti A (2011) Three-dimensional mandibular motion after closed and open reduction of unilateral mandibular condylar process fractures. J Craniomaxillofac Surg 39:249–255CrossRefPubMed

15.

Throckmorton G, Ellis E III (2000) Recovery of mandibular motion after closed and open treatment of unilateral mandibular condylar process fractures. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 29:421–427CrossRefPubMed

16.

Mapelli A, Galante D, Lovecchio N, Sforza C, Ferrario VF (2009) Translation and rotation movements of the mandible during mouth opening and closing. Clin Anat 22(3):311–318CrossRefPubMed

17.

Stiesch-Scholz M, Schmidt S, Eckardt A (2005) Condylar motion after open and closed treatment of mandibular condylar fractures. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 63(9):1304–1309CrossRefPubMed

18.

Silvennoinen U, Iizuka T, Oikarinen K, Lindqvist C (1994) Analysis of possible factors leading to problems after nonsurgical treatment of condylar fractures. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 53:793–799CrossRef

19.

Wilkes C (1989) Internal derangements of the temporomandibular joint. Pathological variations. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 115:469–477CrossRef

20.

Bindra S, Choudhary K, Sharma P, Sheorain A, Sharma CB (2010) Management of mandibular sub condylar and condylar fractures using retromandibular approach and assessment of associated surgical complications. J Maxillofac Oral Surg 9(4):355–362CrossRefPubMed

21.

Jinghede A (2013) A retrospective follow-up study on condylar mandibular fractures and post treatment complications in conservatively treated patients during a 12 years period. 44p Dissertation, Karolinska Institut Odontologi https://slidex.tips/download/anna-jinghede-stockholm-2013-nr-160-institutionen-fr-odontologi. Accessed 10 Feb 2018

22.

Wänman A, Agerberg G (1990) Temporomandibular joint sounds in adolescents: a longitudinal study. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol 69:2–9CrossRefPubMed

23.

Eckelt U, Schneider M, Erasmus F, Gerlach KL, Kuhlisch E, Loukota R, Rasse M, Schubert J, Terheyden H (2006) Open versus closed treatment of fractures of the mandibular condylar process – a prospective randomized multi-centre study. J Cranio-Maxillofac Surg 34:306–314CrossRef

24.

Sim I (1997) Trial banks: an informatics foundation for evidence-based medicine Stanford University. 246 p Dissertation, Stanford University http://infolab.stanford.edu/pub/cstr/reports/cs/tr/97/1599/CS-TR-97-1599.pdf. Accessed 10 Feb 2018

25.

Ellis E III (2009) Method to determine when open treatment of condylar process fractures is not necessary. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 67:1685–1690CrossRefPubMed

Title: Unilateral mandibular condylar process fractures: a retrospective clinical comparison of open versus closed treatment
Authors: Renata Porto Stypulkowski
Aline Gama Santos
Elvidio de Paula e Silva
Cícero André da Costa Moraes
Everton Luis Santos da Rosa
Publication date: 01-06-2019
Publisher: Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Published in: Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery / Issue 2/2019
Print ISSN: 1865-1550
Electronic ISSN: 1865-1569
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10006-019-00760-7

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

Unilateral mandibular condylar process fractures: a retrospective clinical comparison of open versus closed treatment

Abstract

Purpose

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Purpose

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 2/2019

Psychological profiles in patients undergoing orthognathic surgery or rhinoplasty: a preoperative and preliminary comparison

The presentation of odontogenic keratocysts in the jaws with an emphasis on the tooth-bearing area: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Assessing the impact of computerised and written advice in changing the habit and behaviour of alcohol use in patients who have suffered alcohol-related facial injuries—a pilot study

Vertically unstable fractured mandibular segment with attached genial tubercles as a parameter for difficulty during intubation for general anaesthesia—substantiation with computed tomographic (CT) scan evidence

Anteroposterior and vertical soft tissue cephalometric norms of Iranians, interethnic comparisons, sex dimorphism, and the effect of age on cephalometric variables

Is 0.75% ropivacaine more efficacious than 2% lignocaine with 1:80,000 epinephrine for IANB in surgical extraction of impacted lower third molar?