The Journal of craniofacial surgery · 2020
Open Surgery Versus Closed Treatment of Unilateral Mandibular Condyle Fractures.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Han Xiaodong, Shao Xiaojun, Lin Xiaozhen, Gui Weifu, Zhang Ming, Liang Limin
Аннотация
PURPOSE: The aim of this meta-analysis was to evaluate the efficacy of open surgery and closed treatment for unilateral moderately displaced mandibular condyle fractures.
METHODS: PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases were searched according to PRISMA guidelines from inception to October, 2018. Inclusion criteria were based on humans randomized controlled trials in the English literature. Pertinent data were collected and the incidence of the complications was calculated.
RESULTS: A total of 6 studies with 227 patients were included in the meta-analysis. The results showed that there were no significant differences in incidence of malocclusion (odds ratio [OR], 0.33; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.07-1.46; P = 0.14). However, open surgery group had a better maximal mouth opening (WMD = 3.82, 95% CI: 1.93-5.71, P < 0.01), protrusion (WMD = 1.16, 95% CI: 0.42-1.89, P < 0.01) and sum of both laterotrusions (WMD: 2.50, 95% CI: 1.77-3.22, P < 0.01). And the incidence of temporomandibular joint pain was lower than closed treatment group (OR: 0.15, 95% CI: 0.06-0.37, P < 0.01).
CONCLUSIONS: Compared with closed treatment, open surgery has significant advantages in improving mouth opening and mandibular movement, and reducing the incidence of temporomandibular joint pain, provided that open surgery was a promising application in treatment of unilateral moderately displaced mandibular condyle fractures.
METHODS: PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases were searched according to PRISMA guidelines from inception to October, 2018. Inclusion criteria were based on humans randomized controlled trials in the English literature. Pertinent data were collected and the incidence of the complications was calculated.
RESULTS: A total of 6 studies with 227 patients were included in the meta-analysis. The results showed that there were no significant differences in incidence of malocclusion (odds ratio [OR], 0.33; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.07-1.46; P = 0.14). However, open surgery group had a better maximal mouth opening (WMD = 3.82, 95% CI: 1.93-5.71, P < 0.01), protrusion (WMD = 1.16, 95% CI: 0.42-1.89, P < 0.01) and sum of both laterotrusions (WMD: 2.50, 95% CI: 1.77-3.22, P < 0.01). And the incidence of temporomandibular joint pain was lower than closed treatment group (OR: 0.15, 95% CI: 0.06-0.37, P < 0.01).
CONCLUSIONS: Compared with closed treatment, open surgery has significant advantages in improving mouth opening and mandibular movement, and reducing the incidence of temporomandibular joint pain, provided that open surgery was a promising application in treatment of unilateral moderately displaced mandibular condyle fractures.