Journal of the Korean Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons

  • 제48권5호
  • /
  • Pages.303-308
  • /
  • 2022
  • /
  • 2234-7550(pISSN)
  • /
  • 2234-5930(eISSN)
대한구강악안면외과학회 (The Korean Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Open versus closed treatment for extracapsular fracture of the mandibular condyle

  • Lee, Junyeong (Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, School of Dentistry and Dental Science Research Institute, Chonnam National University) ;
  • Jung, Hee-Yeoung (Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, School of Dentistry and Dental Science Research Institute, Chonnam National University) ;
  • Ryu, Jaeyoung (Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, School of Dentistry and Dental Science Research Institute, Chonnam National University) ;
  • Jung, Seunggon (Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, School of Dentistry and Dental Science Research Institute, Chonnam National University) ;
  • Kook, Min-Suk (Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, School of Dentistry and Dental Science Research Institute, Chonnam National University) ;
  • Park, Hong-Ju (Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, School of Dentistry and Dental Science Research Institute, Chonnam National University) ;
  • Oh, Hee-Kyun (Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, School of Dentistry and Dental Science Research Institute, Chonnam National University)
  • 투고 : 2022.07.05
  • 심사 : 2022.08.22
  • 발행 : 2022.10.31
PDF 다운로드
⟨ 이전 논문 다음 논문 ⟩

초록

Objectives: Selection of treatment methods for mandibular condylar fractures remains controversial. In this study, we investigated treatment methods for condylar fractures to determine the indications for open or closed reduction. Patients and Methods: Patients >12 years of age treated for mandibular condylar fractures with a follow-up period of ≥3 months were included in this study. The medical records of enrolled patients were reviewed for sex, age, fracture site, treatment method (open or closed reconstruction), postoperative intermaxillary fixation period, operation time, and complications. Radiological analysis of fracture fragment displacement and changes in ramal height difference was performed using computed tomography and panoramic radiography. Results: A total of 198 patients was investigated, 48.0% (n=95) of whom underwent closed reduction and 52.0% (n=103) underwent open reduction. There was no significant correlation between reduction method and patient sex, age, or follow-up period. No statistically significant difference between the incidence of complications and treatment method was observed. None of the patients underwent open reduction of condylar head fracture. Binary logistic regression analysis showed that open reduction was significantly more frequent in patients with subcondylar fracture compared to in those with a fracture in the condylar head area. There was no statistically significant correlation between the groups and fracture fragment displacement. However, there was a significant difference between the treatment groups in amount of change in ramal height difference between the fractured and the non-fractured sides during treatment. Conclusion: No significant clinical differences were found between the open and closed reduction methods in patients with mandibular condylar fractures. According to fracture site, closed reduction was preferred for condyle head fractures. There was no significant relationship between fracture fragment displacement and treatment method.

키워드

참고문헌

  1. Lindahl L. Condylar fractures of the mandible. IV. Function of the masticatory system. Int J Oral Surg 1977;6:195-203. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0300-9785(77)80009-4
  2. Rastogi S, Sharma S, Kumar S, Reddy MP, Niranjanaprasad Indra B. Fracture of mandibular condyle-to open or not to open: an attempt to settle the controversy. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol 2015;119:608-13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oooo.2015.01.012
  3. Kim JS, Seo HS, Kim KY, Song YJ, Kim S, Hong SM, et al. Open versus closed reduction of mandibular condyle fractures: a systematic review of comparative studies. J Korean Oral Maxillofac Surg 2008;34:99-107.
  4. Johner JP, Essig H, Neff A, Wagner MEH, Blumer M, Gander T. Volumetric evaluated bone resorption after open reduction and internal fixation of condylar head fractures of the mandible. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2021;79:1902-13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joms.2021.04.018
  5. Rozeboom AVJ, Dubois L, Bos RRM, Spijker R, de Lange J. Closed treatment of unilateral mandibular condyle fractures in adults: a systematic review. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2017;46:456-64. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijom.2016.11.009
  6. van den Bergh B, Blankestijn J, van der Ploeg T, Tuinzing DB, Forouzanfar T. Conservative treatment of a mandibular condyle fracture: comparing intermaxillary fixation with screws or arch bar. A randomised clinical trial. J Craniomaxillofac Surg 2015;43:671-6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcms.2015.03.010
  7. Gupta M, Iyer N, Das D, Nagaraj J. Analysis of different treatment protocols for fractures of condylar process of mandible. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2012;70:83-91. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joms.2011.02.009
  8. Bhagol A, Singh V, Kumar I, Verma A. Prospective evaluation of a new classification system for the management of mandibular subcondylar fractures. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2011;69:1159-65. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joms.2010.05.050
  9. So BK, Ko KS, Kim DH, Jang HS, Lee ES, Lim HK. Semi-rigid fixation using a sliding plate for treating fractures of the mandibular condylar process. J Clin Med 2021;10:5782. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm10245782
  10. He D, Yang C, Chen M, Jiang B, Wang B. Intracapsular condylar fracture of the mandible: our classification and open treatment experience. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2009;67:1672-9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joms.2009.02.012
  11. Mohamed AAS, Abotaleb B, Ahmed Abdulqader A, Hongliang D, Sakran KA, He D. Three-dimensional assessment of accuracy for open reduction and internal fixation of the subcondylar fracture and its implications on the TMJ function. J Craniomaxillofac Surg 2021;49:1035-43. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcms.2021.06.009
  12. Ren R, Dai J, Zhi Y, Xie F, Shi J. Comparison of temporomandibular joint function and morphology after surgical and non-surgical treatment in adult condylar head fractures. J Craniomaxillofac Surg 2020;48:323-30. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcms.2020.01.019
  13. Shiju M, Rastogi S, Gupta P, Kukreja S, Thomas R, Bhugra AK, et al. Fractures of the mandibular condyle--open versus closed--a treatment dilemma. J Craniomaxillofac Surg 2015;43:448-51. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcms.2015.01.012
  14. Danda AK, Muthusekhar MR, Narayanan V, Baig MF, Siddareddi A. Open versus closed treatment of unilateral subcondylar and condylar neck fractures: a prospective, randomized clinical study. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2010;68:1238-41. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joms.2009.09.042
  15. Bindal M, Joshi A, Bhat A, Anehosur V. Are facial asymmetry and condylar displacement associated with ramal height and treatment outcomes in unilateral condylar fracture when managed by the closed method? J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2019;77:789.e1-8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joms.2018.11.013
  16. Chrcanovic BR. Surgical versus non-surgical treatment of mandibular condylar fractures: a meta-analysis. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2015;44:158-79. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijom.2014.09.024
  17. Ryu JY, Kim HS, Park CY, Kook MS, Park HJ, Oh HK. A retrospective clinical study of condylar fractures of the mandible in a 4-year period. J Korean Oral Maxillofac Surg 2008;34:388-97.
  18. Marker P, Nielsen A, Bastian HL. Fractures of the mandibular condyle. Part 2: results of treatment of 348 patients. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2000;38:422-6. https://doi.org/10.1054/bjom.2000.0457
  19. Takenoshita Y, Ishibashi H, Oka M. Comparison of functional recovery after nonsurgical and surgical treatment of condylar fractures. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 1990;48:1191-5. https://doi.org/10.1016/0278-2391(90)90535-a
  20. Vesnaver A, Ahcan U, Rozman J. Evaluation of surgical treatment in mandibular condyle fractures. J Craniomaxillofac Surg 2012;40:647-53. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcms.2011.10.029
  21. Wiedemann D, Bonaros N, Schachner T, Weidinger F, Lehr EJ, Vesely M, et al. Surgical problems and complex procedures: issues for operative time in robotic totally endoscopic coronary artery bypass grafting. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2012;143:639-47.e2. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtcvs.2011.04.039
  22. Mohammad OA, Ashour EM, Hassanein FAA. Evaluation of condylar position in anterior mandibular fractures using 3 dimensional miniplate osteosynthesis versus conventional miniplates: randomized clinical trial. J Craniomaxillofac Surg 2022;50:61-9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcms.2021.09.014
  23. Sawazaki R, Lima Junior SM, Asprino L, Moreira RW, de Moraes M. Incidence and patterns of mandibular condyle fractures. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2010;68:1252-9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joms.2009.03.064
  24. Abdel-Galil K, Loukota R. Fractures of the mandibular condyle: evidence base and current concepts of management. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2010;48:520-6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bjoms.2009.10.010
  25. Sang JK, Lee JH. The study of the effect of mandibular growth and function in pediatric unilateral condyle fractures. J Korean Assoc Oral Maxillofac Surg 2011;37:448-56. https://doi.org/10.5125/jkaoms.2011.37.6.448