Oral surgery, oral medicine, oral pathology and oral radiology · 2015
Fracture of mandibular condyle—to open or not to open: an attempt to settle the controversy.
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяРандомизированное исследованиеНазвание 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.
Rastogi Sanjay, Sharma Siddharth, Kumar Sanjeev, Reddy Mahendra P, Niranjanaprasad Indra B
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: To compare the outcome of the open method versus the closed method of treatment for mandibular condylar fracture.
STUDY DESIGN: Fifty patients with fractures of the mandibular condylar processes were evaluated. All fractures were displaced, with a degree of deviation between the condylar fragment and the ascending ramus of 10 to 45 degrees (mediolaterally). The patients were randomly divided into two groups, with group 1 receiving open reduction internal fixation and group 2 receiving closed reduction. The follow-up was done over the period of 6 months.
RESULTS: Statistically significant improvement was seen in group 1 compared with group 2 in terms of anatomic reduction of the condyle, shortening of the ascending ramus, occlusal status, and deviation on mouth opening.
CONCLUSIONS: A statistically significant difference was seen in the patients treated with the open method, with improved temporomandibular joint functions and fewer short- and long-term complications compared with those treated with the closed method.
STUDY DESIGN: Fifty patients with fractures of the mandibular condylar processes were evaluated. All fractures were displaced, with a degree of deviation between the condylar fragment and the ascending ramus of 10 to 45 degrees (mediolaterally). The patients were randomly divided into two groups, with group 1 receiving open reduction internal fixation and group 2 receiving closed reduction. The follow-up was done over the period of 6 months.
RESULTS: Statistically significant improvement was seen in group 1 compared with group 2 in terms of anatomic reduction of the condyle, shortening of the ascending ramus, occlusal status, and deviation on mouth opening.
CONCLUSIONS: A statistically significant difference was seen in the patients treated with the open method, with improved temporomandibular joint functions and fewer short- and long-term complications compared with those treated with the closed method.