National journal of maxillofacial surgery · 2023
Comparative evaluation of post treatment CT scan and clinical parameters in open reduction and closed reduction treatment of condylar fractures.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
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.
Jose Anu, Dandagi Satyajit, Chour Girish V, Bora Sushmit P, Dharan Minu Parvathi
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Mandibular fracture is the second most common fracture of facial bone, next to nasal bone. Twenty-five to forty percent of mandibular fractures involve the condyle. In the literature, there exists no consensus "gold standard" treatment for mandibular condylar fractures, and there is a continuing debate on whether condylar fractures should undergo closed or open reduction.
MATERIALS AND METHOD: Twenty patients who had undergone open reduction and closed reduction treatment were included in the study. Clinically maximal interincisal opening, laterotrusive and protrusive movements, pain on mouth opening, malocclusion, chin deviation on mouth opening, facial nerve palsy, hematoma, infected implant, and bite force were evaluated after a minimum of 3 months postoperatively. Also, a postoperative CT is done to evaluate the anatomical position of fragment.
RESULTS: On evaluation of clinical parameters, both groups had comparable results. However, none of the patients in open reduction group had deviation of mandible from midline on mouth opening. Also, better anatomical repositioning is obtained in open reduction group.
CONCLUSION: The results of this study suggest that the open reduction method is a better alternative to closed reduction in treatment of mandibular condylar fractures.
MATERIALS AND METHOD: Twenty patients who had undergone open reduction and closed reduction treatment were included in the study. Clinically maximal interincisal opening, laterotrusive and protrusive movements, pain on mouth opening, malocclusion, chin deviation on mouth opening, facial nerve palsy, hematoma, infected implant, and bite force were evaluated after a minimum of 3 months postoperatively. Also, a postoperative CT is done to evaluate the anatomical position of fragment.
RESULTS: On evaluation of clinical parameters, both groups had comparable results. However, none of the patients in open reduction group had deviation of mandible from midline on mouth opening. Also, better anatomical repositioning is obtained in open reduction group.
CONCLUSION: The results of this study suggest that the open reduction method is a better alternative to closed reduction in treatment of mandibular condylar fractures.