These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Open versus closed treatment of unilateral subcondylar and condylar neck fractures: a prospective, randomized clinical study.
    Author: Danda AK, Muthusekhar MR, Narayanan V, Baig MF, Siddareddi A.
    Journal: J Oral Maxillofac Surg; 2010 Jun; 68(6):1238-41. PubMed ID: 20303209.
    Abstract:
    PURPOSE: The purpose of the present study was to compare closed treatment with open reduction and internal fixation for displaced unilateral subcondylar and condylar neck fractures. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 32 patients with displaced unilateral condylar fractures were included in the present study. Of the 32 patients, 27 were men and 5 were women. The patients were divided into 2 groups. The group I patients were treated with closed treatment and rigid maxillomandibular fixation, and group II patients were treated with open reduction and internal fixation. The patients were assessed for maximal interincisal opening, protrusive movements, lateral excursion movements on the fractured and nonfractured sides, anatomic reduction of the condyle on radiography, pain in the temporomandibular joint, and malocclusion. Parameters such as the maximal interincisal opening, protrusive movements, and lateral excursion movements on the fractured and nonfractured sides between the 2 groups were compared statistically using an independent t test. Parameters such as anatomic reduction of the condyle, pain in the temporomandibular joint, and malocclusion between the 2 groups were compared statistically using the chi(2) test. RESULTS: No significant difference was found between the 2 groups in the maximal interincisal opening, protrusion, lateral excursion movement, malocclusion, and temporomandibular joint pain; however, a statistically significant difference was seen in the anatomic reduction of the condyle. CONCLUSIONS: The results of the present study have shown that no significant clinical difference exists between patients undergoing closed treatment and rigid maxillomandibular fixation or open reduction and internal fixation. However, a radiographically better anatomic reduction of the condylar process was seen in the patients treated with open reduction and internal fixation.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]