• Journal of the Korean Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons
• /
• v.25 no.4
• /
• pp.356-360
• /
• 1999

PURPOSE : This is to review the complicated jaw fractures that had been referred for revision of the unsatisfactory results, and to provide proper managements for the easily complicated jaw fractures. MATERIALS & METHODS : Twenty-nine patients who had been revised due to malunion or complicated fractures of facial bones for last 3 years were reviewed. The main problems required for revision, type of fractures complicated, the primary managements to be reclaimed, the specialties to be involved, the management to be reclaimed, time elapsed to seek reoperation, type of revision surgeries, residual complication were analysed with medical records, radiographs and final examinations. RESULTS: The major complaints were malocclusion(79.3%), facial disfigurement(41.3%), TMJ problems (13.7%), neurologic problems(10.3%), non-union(10.3%), and infection(6.8%). Unsatisfactory results were occurred most frequently after improper management of the multiple fractures of the mandible (62.2%), combined fractures of maxilla and mandible (20.6%), fracture of zygomatico-maxillary complex and midpalate (17.2%). The complications to be corrected were widened or collapsed dental arches (79.3%), improperly reduced condyles (41.3%), painful TMJ (34.4%), limited jaw excursion (31.0%), over-reduction of zygoma (13.7%), and nonunion with infection(13.7%). and dysesthesia (10.3%). The primary managements were nendereet by plastic surgeons in 82.7%(24/29) and by oral surgeons in 7.6%(2/29). Main causes of malunion are inadequate ORIF in 76%, unawareness & delay in 17%, and delayed due to systemic cares in 17%. 76% of 29 patients had been in state of intermaxillary fixation for over 4 weeks. Revision were done by means of "refracture and ORIF"in 48.2%(14/29), orthognathic osteotomies with bone grafts in 55.1%(16/29), and camouflage countering & alloplastic implantations in 37.9%(11/29), TMJ surgeries in 17.2%, micro-neurosurgeries in 11.6%. Residual complications were limited mouth opening in 24.1% (7/29), paresthesia in 13.7%, resorption of reduced condyle in 10.3%. CONCLUSIONS : Failure of initial treatment of jaw fractures is due to improper diagnosis and inadequate treatment with lack of sufficient knowledge of stomatognathic system. It is crucial to judge jaw fracture and patients accurately, moreover, the best way of treatments has to be selected. Consideration of these factors in treatment could minimize the complication of jaw fractures.

• Journal of the Korean Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons
• /
• v.48 no.5
• /
• pp.303-308
• /
• 2022

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.