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
Related Resources
Trending Papers
Heart failure with preserved ejection fraction: diagnosis, risk assessment, and treatment.Clinical Research in Cardiology : Official Journal of the German Cardiac Society 2024 April 12
Proximal versus distal diuretics in congestive heart failure.Nephrology, Dialysis, Transplantation 2024 Februrary 30
Efficacy and safety of pharmacotherapy in chronic insomnia: A review of clinical guidelines and case reports.Mental Health Clinician 2023 October
World Health Organization and International Consensus Classification of eosinophilic disorders: 2024 update on diagnosis, risk stratification, and management.American Journal of Hematology 2024 March 30
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices
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