Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery
Volume 68, Issue 6 , Pages 1238-1241, June 2010

Open Versus Closed Treatment of Unilateral Subcondylar and Condylar Neck Fractures: A Prospective, Randomized Clinical Study

  • Anil Kumar Danda, BDS, MDS

      Affiliations

    • Senior Lecturer, Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Saveetha University, Chennai, India
    • Corresponding Author InformationAddress correspondence and reprint requests to Dr Danda: Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Saveetha University, 162 Poonamalle High Road, Velappanchavadi, Chennai, Tamilnadu 600077 India
  • ,
  • M.R. Muthusekhar, BDS, MDS

      Affiliations

    • Professor, Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Saveetha University, Chennai, India
  • ,
  • Vinod Narayanan, BDS, MDS, FDSRCS, MOMSRCPS

      Affiliations

    • Professor, Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Saveetha University, Chennai, India
  • ,
  • Mirza F. Baig, BDS, MDS

      Affiliations

    • Professor, Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Saveetha University, Chennai, India
  • ,
  • Avinash Siddareddi, BDS, MDS

      Affiliations

    • Assistant Professor, Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Saveetha University, Chennai, India

published online 19 March 2010.

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 χ2 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.

To access this article, please choose from the options below

Login to an existing account or Register a new account.

  • Purchase this article for 31.50 USD (You must login/register to purchase this article)

    Online access for 24 hours. The PDF version can be downloaded as your permanent record.

  • Subscribe to this title

    Get unlimited online access to this article and all other articles in this title 24/7 for one year.

  • Claim access now

    For current subscribers with Society Membership or Account Number.

  • Visit SciVerse ScienceDirect to see if you have access via your institution.
 

PII: S0278-2391(09)01746-7

doi:10.1016/j.joms.2009.09.042

Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery
Volume 68, Issue 6 , Pages 1238-1241, June 2010