Oral and maxillofacial surgery · 2019
Unilateral mandibular condylar process fractures: a retrospective clinical comparison of open versus closed treatment.
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.
Stypulkowski Renata Porto, Santos Aline Gama, de Paula E Silva Elvidio, da Costa Moraes Cícero André, da Rosa Everton Luis Santos
Аннотация
PURPOSE: To retrospectively compare the clinical outcomes of closed treatment (closed reduction and intermaxillary fixation) with open treatment (open reduction and internal fixation with miniplates and screws) of unilateral mandibular condylar process fractures.
METHODS: Adult patients with unilateral condylar fractures treated from January 2011 to July 2013 in the Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery Service at the Base Hospital of the Federal District, Brazil, were invited to participate. Those who agreed to participate were scheduled for clinical evaluation, which consisted of a subjective questionnaire (completed by the examiner) and an objective physical examination of the temporomandibular joints and mandibular range of motion. The following variables were analyzed: mouth opening; lateral excursions of the mandible; presence of clicking; mandibular function impairment (speech, chewing); and occlusion.
RESULTS: Seventeen patients (15 men and 2 women) attended the scheduled appointment: 9 had received open treatment (surgical) and 8 had received closed treatment (nonsurgical). Patients were evaluated at 6-30 months postoperatively. Only maximum mouth opening (p = 0.044) and maximum lateral excursion to the unaffected side (p = 0.030) showed a significant difference between the closed and open treatment groups.
CONCLUSIONS: Our findings are consistent with those reported in the literature as both methods (closed and open treatment) produced satisfactory outcomes. The only between-group difference was the amount of maximum mouth opening and lateral excursion to the unaffected side. Further randomized studies with a larger number of patients with condylar process fractures are needed to verify the results obtained with each treatment.
METHODS: Adult patients with unilateral condylar fractures treated from January 2011 to July 2013 in the Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery Service at the Base Hospital of the Federal District, Brazil, were invited to participate. Those who agreed to participate were scheduled for clinical evaluation, which consisted of a subjective questionnaire (completed by the examiner) and an objective physical examination of the temporomandibular joints and mandibular range of motion. The following variables were analyzed: mouth opening; lateral excursions of the mandible; presence of clicking; mandibular function impairment (speech, chewing); and occlusion.
RESULTS: Seventeen patients (15 men and 2 women) attended the scheduled appointment: 9 had received open treatment (surgical) and 8 had received closed treatment (nonsurgical). Patients were evaluated at 6-30 months postoperatively. Only maximum mouth opening (p = 0.044) and maximum lateral excursion to the unaffected side (p = 0.030) showed a significant difference between the closed and open treatment groups.
CONCLUSIONS: Our findings are consistent with those reported in the literature as both methods (closed and open treatment) produced satisfactory outcomes. The only between-group difference was the amount of maximum mouth opening and lateral excursion to the unaffected side. Further randomized studies with a larger number of patients with condylar process fractures are needed to verify the results obtained with each treatment.