Format

Send to

Choose Destination
Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2018 Sep;47(9):1132-1137. doi: 10.1016/j.ijom.2018.05.021. Epub 2018 Jun 13.

Clinical outcomes in the treatment of unilateral condylar fractures: a cross-sectional study.

Author information

1
Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Academic Medical Centre of Amsterdam, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. Electronic address: A.V.Rozeboom@amc.uva.nl.
2
Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, University Medical Centre of Groningen, University of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands.
3
Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Academic Medical Centre of Amsterdam, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands; Department of Oral Kinesiology, Academic Centre for Dentistry Amsterdam (ACTA), University of Amsterdam and Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
4
Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Academic Medical Centre of Amsterdam, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
5
Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery and Special Dental Care, University Medical Centre Utrecht, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
6
Department of Oral Kinesiology, Academic Centre for Dentistry Amsterdam (ACTA), University of Amsterdam and Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.

Abstract

The treatment of mandibular condyle fractures has been the subject of considerable discussion, especially whether open or closed treatment should be used. There is a need for practical,evidence-based guidelines, and both objective and subjective parameters should be measured. To date, fewstudies have considered clinically relevant subjective parameters. This study was performed to evaluate the outcomes of the treatment of condylar fractures using the Mandibular Function Impairment Questionnaire (MFIQ) and the Diagnostic Criteria for Temporomandibular Disorders (DC/TMD) and to compare the outcomes of open and the closed treatment. Patients with condylar fractures and at least 1year of follow-up were examined. These patients completed the MFIQ and other questionnaires, and were examined according to the DC/TMD. Seventy-four of 171 eligible patients participated in this study. The mean MFIQ score was 10.70 (standard error 2.9) in the open group and 4.96 (standard error 1.3) in the closed group (P=0.023), an outcome in favour of the closed treatment group. Examination according to the DC/TMD did not reveal a significant prevalence of TMD complaints. Closed treatment appears to be a safe and appropriate modality for most unilateral condylar fractures. Although the open group in general showed similar outcomes, this treatment should be reserved for limited indications.

KEYWORDS:

DC/TMD; MFIQ; condylar fracture; retrospective

PMID:
29909084
DOI:
10.1016/j.ijom.2018.05.021
[Indexed for MEDLINE]

Supplemental Content

Full text links

Icon for Elsevier Science
Loading ...
Support Center