Format

Send to

Choose Destination
J Craniomaxillofac Surg. 2018 Oct;46(10):1719-1725. doi: 10.1016/j.jcms.2018.07.010. Epub 2018 Jul 24.

Fractures of the mandibular condyle: A comparison of patients, fractures and treatment characteristics between Groningen (The Netherlands) and Dresden (Germany).

Author information

1
University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, PO Box 30.001, 9700 RB, Groningen, The Netherlands; Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Hannover Medical School, Carl-Neubergstrasse 1, D-30625, Hannover, Germany. Electronic address: niezen.elizabeth@mh-hannover.de.
2
University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, PO Box 30.001, 9700 RB, Groningen, The Netherlands.
3
Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Technical University of Dresden, Fetscherstrasse 74, D-01307, Dresden, Germany.
4
Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Hannover Medical School, Carl-Neubergstrasse 1, D-30625, Hannover, Germany.
5
University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, and Center for Rehabilitation, PO Box 30.001, 9700 RB, Groningen, The Netherlands. Electronic address: p.u.dijkstra@umcg.nl.

Abstract

PURPOSE:

To explore differences in patient, fracture, accident and treatment characteristics between patients treated for a mandibular condyle fracture in the University Centres of Dresden and Groningen, as an explanation for differences treatment results.

MATERIALS AND METHODS:

Patients' fracture, accident and treatment characteristics were obtained from the medical records of Dresden and Groningen from January 1, 2008, to August 31, 2011, and were analysed using logistic regression analysis.

RESULTS:

In Dresden, compared to Groningen, patients were generally older (OR 1.03, 95% CI 1.02; 1.05, per year), were more often male (OR 2.54, 95% CI 1.48; 4.34) and more often had intracapsular (OR 2.95, 95% CI 1.67; 5.22) and low condylar (OR 1.86, 95% CI 1.14; 3.04) fractures. In Groningen 98% of patients received closed treatment and in Dresden 42%.

CONCLUSION:

Significant differences in patients and fractures and treatments were found between both Centres. These differences can partly be explained by the demographics of the cities and differences in imaging techniques (e.g., computed tomography, Orthopantomogram, Towne projection) applied to identify fractures. This study illustrates that differences in diagnosis, treatment and outcome are not only related to the health care system but also to differences in patient characteristics between centres.

KEYWORDS:

Closed treatment; Fracture of the mandibular condyle; Logistic regression analysis; Open treatment; Patient characteristics

PMID:
30097410
DOI:
10.1016/j.jcms.2018.07.010
[Indexed for MEDLINE]

Supplemental Content

Full text links

Icon for Elsevier Science
Loading ...
Support Center