We have located links that may give you full text access.
COMPARATIVE STUDY
JOURNAL ARTICLE
RESEARCH SUPPORT, NON-U.S. GOV'T
RESEARCH SUPPORT, U.S. GOV'T, NON-P.H.S.
Mandibular motion after closed and open treatment of unilateral mandibular condylar process fractures.
PURPOSE: This study compared mandibular and condylar mobility after open or closed treatment for fractures of the mandibular condylar process.
PATIENTS AND METHODS: One hundred thirty-six patients (111 male, 25 female), 74 treated by closed and 62 by open methods, were included in this study. They underwent testing of mandibular and condyle mobility at 6 weeks, 6 months, and 1, 2, and 3 years postsurgery. A jaw-tracking device was used to assess mandibular motion. Radiographs that were traced and digitized were used to assess condylar displacement and condylar mobility. Standard statistical methods were used to assess differences between groups.
RESULTS: Patients treated by open reduction had significantly greater initial displacement of their condylar processes than did the group treated closed. Immediately after treatment and uprighting of the condyles in the open treatment group, patients treated closed had significantly more displacement. At 6 weeks, patients treated closed had some measures of mandibular mobility that were significantly greater than those in patients treated by open reduction. However, after the 6-week period there were minimal differences in mandibular mobility between groups. At 6 weeks, patients treated by open reduction had significantly greater vertical mobility of the condyle than patients treated closed despite less mouth opening. After the 6-week period, patients treated by open reduction continued to have greater condylar mobility on the fractured side than did patients treated by closed methods. No measures of postsurgical displacement correlated with mobility measures in patients treated by open reduction. However, several measures of mandibular displacement correlated with measures of mobility in patients treated closed, indicating that the more displaced the condylar process, the more limited the mobility of the mandible.
CONCLUSIONS: Based on this study, patients treated for fractures of the mandibular condylar process by open reduction had somewhat greater condylar mobility than patients treated closed, even though the former group had more severely displaced fractures before surgery. Therefore, open reduction may produce functional benefits to patients with severely displaced condylar process fractures.
PATIENTS AND METHODS: One hundred thirty-six patients (111 male, 25 female), 74 treated by closed and 62 by open methods, were included in this study. They underwent testing of mandibular and condyle mobility at 6 weeks, 6 months, and 1, 2, and 3 years postsurgery. A jaw-tracking device was used to assess mandibular motion. Radiographs that were traced and digitized were used to assess condylar displacement and condylar mobility. Standard statistical methods were used to assess differences between groups.
RESULTS: Patients treated by open reduction had significantly greater initial displacement of their condylar processes than did the group treated closed. Immediately after treatment and uprighting of the condyles in the open treatment group, patients treated closed had significantly more displacement. At 6 weeks, patients treated closed had some measures of mandibular mobility that were significantly greater than those in patients treated by open reduction. However, after the 6-week period there were minimal differences in mandibular mobility between groups. At 6 weeks, patients treated by open reduction had significantly greater vertical mobility of the condyle than patients treated closed despite less mouth opening. After the 6-week period, patients treated by open reduction continued to have greater condylar mobility on the fractured side than did patients treated by closed methods. No measures of postsurgical displacement correlated with mobility measures in patients treated by open reduction. However, several measures of mandibular displacement correlated with measures of mobility in patients treated closed, indicating that the more displaced the condylar process, the more limited the mobility of the mandible.
CONCLUSIONS: Based on this study, patients treated for fractures of the mandibular condylar process by open reduction had somewhat greater condylar mobility than patients treated closed, even though the former group had more severely displaced fractures before surgery. Therefore, open reduction may produce functional benefits to patients with severely displaced condylar process fractures.
Full text links
Trending Papers
Cardiovascular Disease in Diabetes and Chronic Kidney Disease.Journal of Clinical Medicine 2023 November 9
Monitoring Macro- and Microcirculation in the Critically Ill: A Narrative Review.Avicenna Journal of Medicine 2023 July
Urinary tract infections: a review of the current diagnostics landscape.Journal of Medical Microbiology 2023 November
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
Read by QxMD is copyright © 2021 QxMD Software Inc. All rights reserved. By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app