바로가기메뉴

본문 바로가기 주메뉴 바로가기

ACOMS+ 및 학술지 리포지터리 설명회

  • 한국과학기술정보연구원(KISTI) 서울분원 대회의실(별관 3층)
  • 2024년 07월 03일(수) 13:30
 

Journal of the Korean Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons

  • P-ISSN2234-7550
  • E-ISSN2234-5930
  • SCOPUS, KCI, ESCI

Open versus closed treatment for extracapsular fracture of the mandibular condyle

Journal of the Korean Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons / Journal of the Korean Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons, (P)2234-7550; (E)2234-5930
2022, v.48 no.5, pp.303-308
https://doi.org/10.5125/jkaoms.2022.48.5.303
Junyeong Lee (School of Dentistry and Dental Science Research Institute, Chonnam National University, Gwangju, Korea)
Hee-Yeoung Jung (School of Dentistry and Dental Science Research Institute, Chonnam National University, Gwangju, Korea)
Jaeyoung Ryu (School of Dentistry and Dental Science Research Institute, Chonnam National University, Gwangju, Korea)
Seunggon Jung (School of Dentistry and Dental Science Research Institute, Chonnam National University, Gwangju, Korea)
Min-Suk Kook (School of Dentistry and Dental Science Research Institute, Chonnam National University, Gwangju, Korea)
Hong-Ju Park (School of Dentistry and Dental Science Research Institute, Chonnam National University, Gwangju, Korea)
Hee-Kyun Oh (School of Dentistry and Dental Science Research Institute, Chonnam National University, Gwangju, Korea)

Abstract

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), postop-erative 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.

keywords
Mandibular fracture, Open fracture reduction, Closed fracture reduction

Journal of the Korean Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons