Cargando…

Unilateral Subcondylar and Condylar Neck Fractures: Randomized Clinical Study

AIMS AND OBJECTIVES: The aim of the present study was to compare closed treatment with open reduction internal fixation (ORIF) for subcondylar and condylar neck fractures. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This randomized prospective study was conducted on thirty patients who visited the Department of Oral and...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Hakim, Tajamul Ahmad, Shah, Ajaz Ahmed, Farooq, Shahid, Kosar, Shamina, Gul, Sumaira, Mehmood, Nida
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Medknow Publications & Media Pvt Ltd 2018
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6018298/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29963418
http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/ams.ams_166_17
_version_ 1783334926940110848
author Hakim, Tajamul Ahmad
Shah, Ajaz Ahmed
Farooq, Shahid
Kosar, Shamina
Gul, Sumaira
Mehmood, Nida
author_facet Hakim, Tajamul Ahmad
Shah, Ajaz Ahmed
Farooq, Shahid
Kosar, Shamina
Gul, Sumaira
Mehmood, Nida
author_sort Hakim, Tajamul Ahmad
collection PubMed
description AIMS AND OBJECTIVES: The aim of the present study was to compare closed treatment with open reduction internal fixation (ORIF) for subcondylar and condylar neck fractures. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This randomized prospective study was conducted on thirty patients who visited the Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Government Dental College, Srinagar, with condylar fractures. All fractures were displaced; either angulated between 10° and 45° and the ascending ramus was shortened by >2 mm to <15 mm. Patients were divided into two groups after satisfying the inclusion and exclusion criteria – Group I (closed treatment) and Group II (open reduction) (15 implants in each group). In Group I, patients were treated by mandibulo-maxillary fixation using arch bar and elastics for 4 weeks, and in Group II, patients were treated by ORIF using two 1.5-mm miniplates. Follow-up was done at 1 month, 3 months, and 6 months. Our postoperative evaluation included five parameters – maximal interincisal opening, protrusion, lateral excursion on fractured and nonfractured sides, anatomical reduction, and pain and malocclusion. Nonparametric data were compared for statistical significance with Chi square test and parametric data with an independent sample's t-test (P < 0.05). RESULTS: Correct anatomical position of the fragments was achieved significantly more accurately in the operative group in contrast to the closed treatment group. Regarding mouth opening/lateral excursion on fractured and nonfractured sides/protrusion, significant (P < 0.05) differences were observed between both groups (open 39.73/7.50/8.17/7.87 mm vs. closed 36.87/6.07/7.23/7.13 mm). Pain also revealed significant (P = 0.025) difference with less pain in the operative treatment group. CONCLUSION: Both treatment options for condylar fractures of the mandible yielded acceptable results. However, operative treatment was superior in all objective and subjective functional parameters except occlusion.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6018298
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2018
publisher Medknow Publications & Media Pvt Ltd
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-60182982018-06-29 Unilateral Subcondylar and Condylar Neck Fractures: Randomized Clinical Study Hakim, Tajamul Ahmad Shah, Ajaz Ahmed Farooq, Shahid Kosar, Shamina Gul, Sumaira Mehmood, Nida Ann Maxillofac Surg Original Article - Comparative Study AIMS AND OBJECTIVES: The aim of the present study was to compare closed treatment with open reduction internal fixation (ORIF) for subcondylar and condylar neck fractures. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This randomized prospective study was conducted on thirty patients who visited the Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Government Dental College, Srinagar, with condylar fractures. All fractures were displaced; either angulated between 10° and 45° and the ascending ramus was shortened by >2 mm to <15 mm. Patients were divided into two groups after satisfying the inclusion and exclusion criteria – Group I (closed treatment) and Group II (open reduction) (15 implants in each group). In Group I, patients were treated by mandibulo-maxillary fixation using arch bar and elastics for 4 weeks, and in Group II, patients were treated by ORIF using two 1.5-mm miniplates. Follow-up was done at 1 month, 3 months, and 6 months. Our postoperative evaluation included five parameters – maximal interincisal opening, protrusion, lateral excursion on fractured and nonfractured sides, anatomical reduction, and pain and malocclusion. Nonparametric data were compared for statistical significance with Chi square test and parametric data with an independent sample's t-test (P < 0.05). RESULTS: Correct anatomical position of the fragments was achieved significantly more accurately in the operative group in contrast to the closed treatment group. Regarding mouth opening/lateral excursion on fractured and nonfractured sides/protrusion, significant (P < 0.05) differences were observed between both groups (open 39.73/7.50/8.17/7.87 mm vs. closed 36.87/6.07/7.23/7.13 mm). Pain also revealed significant (P = 0.025) difference with less pain in the operative treatment group. CONCLUSION: Both treatment options for condylar fractures of the mandible yielded acceptable results. However, operative treatment was superior in all objective and subjective functional parameters except occlusion. Medknow Publications & Media Pvt Ltd 2018 /pmc/articles/PMC6018298/ /pubmed/29963418 http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/ams.ams_166_17 Text en Copyright: © 2018 Annals of Maxillofacial Surgery http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0 This is an open access journal, and articles are distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 License, which allows others to remix, tweak, and build upon the work non-commercially, as long as appropriate credit is given and the new creations are licensed under the identical terms.
spellingShingle Original Article - Comparative Study
Hakim, Tajamul Ahmad
Shah, Ajaz Ahmed
Farooq, Shahid
Kosar, Shamina
Gul, Sumaira
Mehmood, Nida
Unilateral Subcondylar and Condylar Neck Fractures: Randomized Clinical Study
title Unilateral Subcondylar and Condylar Neck Fractures: Randomized Clinical Study
title_full Unilateral Subcondylar and Condylar Neck Fractures: Randomized Clinical Study
title_fullStr Unilateral Subcondylar and Condylar Neck Fractures: Randomized Clinical Study
title_full_unstemmed Unilateral Subcondylar and Condylar Neck Fractures: Randomized Clinical Study
title_short Unilateral Subcondylar and Condylar Neck Fractures: Randomized Clinical Study
title_sort unilateral subcondylar and condylar neck fractures: randomized clinical study
topic Original Article - Comparative Study
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6018298/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29963418
http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/ams.ams_166_17
work_keys_str_mv AT hakimtajamulahmad unilateralsubcondylarandcondylarneckfracturesrandomizedclinicalstudy
AT shahajazahmed unilateralsubcondylarandcondylarneckfracturesrandomizedclinicalstudy
AT farooqshahid unilateralsubcondylarandcondylarneckfracturesrandomizedclinicalstudy
AT kosarshamina unilateralsubcondylarandcondylarneckfracturesrandomizedclinicalstudy
AT gulsumaira unilateralsubcondylarandcondylarneckfracturesrandomizedclinicalstudy
AT mehmoodnida unilateralsubcondylarandcondylarneckfracturesrandomizedclinicalstudy