Comparison of different treatment techniques in the mandibular condyle fracture

Karadede, Berşan; ÇELEBİLER, ÖZHAN BEKİR; Çavuş Özkan, Melekber; karadede ünal, beyza; Durmus Kocaaslan, Fatma Nihal

doi:10.14744/tjtes.2020.94992

Comparison of different treatment techniques in the mandibular condyle fracture

F. Nihal DURMUŞ KOCAASLAN, (Marmara Üniversitesi Tıp Fakültesi Plastik Rekonstrüktif ve Estetik Cerrahi Anabilim Dalı, İstanbul, Türkiye)

Beyza Karadede Ünal, (İzmir Katip Çelebi Üniversitesi Diş Hekimliği Fakültesi Ortodonti Anabilim Dalı, İzmir, Türkiye)

Melekber CAVUS OZKAN, (Marmara Üniversitesi Tıp Fakültesi Plastik Rekonstrüktif ve Estetik Cerrahi Anabilim Dalı, İstanbul, Türkiye)

Berşan Karadede, (izmir Katip Çelebi Üniversitesi Diş Hekimliği Fakültesi Ortodonti Anabilim Dalı, İzmir, Türkiye)

Özhan Çelebiler (Marmara Üniversitesi Tıp Fakültesi Plastik Rekonstrüktif ve Estetik Cerrahi Anabilim Dalı, İstanbul, Türkiye)

Ulusal Travma ve Acil Cerrahi Dergisi

3 0

Yıl: 2022 Cilt: 28 Sayı: 1 Sayfa Aralığı: 99 - 106 Metin Dili: İngilizce DOI: 10.14744/tjtes.2020.94992 İndeks Tarihi: 03-11-2022

Comparison of different treatment techniques in the mandibular condyle fracture

Öz:

BACKGROUND: Mandibular condyle fractures can be treated conservatively by intermaxillary fixation (IMF) or by open reposition and internal fixation. Although many studies have discussed for the optimal treatment method, the issue remains controversial. In this study, we aimed to compare conservative techniques in the mandibular condyle fractures. METHODS: Twenty four unilateral condyle fracture patients aged between 18 and 48 years were treated according to one of three different modalities. Bracketing, arch bar or mini screw was applied to all non-surgery patients to obtain IMF. Eight patients were treat- ed with only IMF meanwhile eleven patients were treated with one or double-sided amplifier occlusal splint according to the status of fractured segments, in addition to IMF. Remaining five patients have undergone open reduction and fractured segments immobilized with mini plates. Pre- and post-operative images were recorded with a computerized tomography device. Clinical and radiological examinations were performed by orthodontists and surgeons at baseline and at 6 months of treatment. RESULTS: The condyle lengths of the patients with unilateral fracture after recovery were compared with the unaffected side. The length between the most protruding point of the condyle and the mandible was measured and the length difference was only 5.94 mm in patients who were treated by IMF. The length difference of patients who used brackets and splints was 3.36 mm (p<0.05). The length difference of patients who were repaired by plate screws was 1.80 mm (p>0.05). However, there was no statistically significant difference (p>0.05) between the groups in the IMF, occlusal splint and IMF and mini plate groups, between the trauma side and the opposite side. None of the patients developed ankylosis, open mouth, limitation of mouth opening, facial asymmetry, laterognathia, and retrognathia. The occlusion of the patients who were not known to have pre-trauma occlusions were directed, repositioned and provided an appropriate occlusion. CONCLUSION: The use of IMF with an occlusal splint is a more conservative and acceptable treatment modality than open reduc- tion in selected cases.

Anahtar Kelime:

Belge Türü: Makale Makale Türü: Araştırma Makalesi Erişim Türü: Erişime Açık

1. Marker P, Nielsen A, Bastian HL. Fractures of the mandibular condyle. Part 2: Results of treatment of 348 patients. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2000;38:422–6.
2. Motamedi MH. An assessment of maxillofacial fractures: A 5-year study of 237 patients. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2003;61:61–4.
3. Van Den Bergh B, Heymans MW, Duvekot F, Forouzanfar T. Treatment and complications of mandibular fractures: A 10-year analysis. J Cranio- maxillofac Surg 2012;40:e108–11.
4. Palmieri C, Ellis E 3rd, Throckmorton G. Mandibular motion after closed and open treatment of unilateral mandibular condylear process fractures. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 1999;57:764–75, discussion 775–6.
5. Park JM, Jang YW, Kim SG, Park YW, Rotaru H, Baciut G, et al. Com- parative study of the prognosis of an extracorporeal reduction and a closed treatment in mandibular condylee head and/or neck fractures. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2010;68:2986–93.
6. Sharif MO, Fedorowicz Z, Drews P, Nasser M, Dorri M, Newton T, et al. Interventions for the treatment of fractures of the mandibular condyle. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2010 ;4:CD006538.
7. Yang WG, Chen CT, Tsay PK, Chen YR. Functional results of unilateral mandibular condylear process fractures after open and closed treatment. J Trauma 2002;52:498–503.
8. Bormann KH, Wild S, Gellrich NC, Kokemuller H, Stuhmer C, Schmel- zeisen R, et al. Five-year retrospective study of mandibular fractures in Freiburg, Germany: Incidence, etiology, treatment, and complications. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2009;67:1251–5.
9. Niezen ET, Bos RR, de Bont LG, Stegenga B, Dijkstra PU. Complaints re- lated to mandibular function impairment after closed treatment of fractures of the mandibular condylee. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2010;39:660–5.
10. Silvennoinen U, Raustia AM, Lindqvist C, Oikarinen K. Occlusal and temporomandibular joint disorders in patients with unilateral con- dylear fracture. A prospective one-year study. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 1998;27:280–5.
11. Gupta M, Iyer N, Das D, Nagaraj J. Analysis of different treatment proto- cols for fractures of condylear process of mandible. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2012;70:83–91.
12. Chen CT, Feng CH, Tsay PK, Lai JP, Chen YR. Functional outcomes following surgical treatment of bilateral mandibular condylear fractures. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2011;40:38–44.
13. Bhagol A, Singh V, Kumar I, Verma A. Prospective evaluation of a new classification system for the management of mandibular subcondylear fractures. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2011;69:1159–65.
14. Zachariades N, Mezitis M, Mourouzis C, Papadakis D, Spanou A. Fractures of the mandibular condylee: A review of 466 cases. Literature review, reflections on treatment and proposals. J Craniomaxillofac Surg 2006;34:421–32.
15. Forouzanfar T, Lobbezoo F, Overgaauw M, de Groot A, Kommers S, van Selms M, et al. Long-term results and complications after treatment of bilateral fractures of the mandibular condyle. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2013;51:634–8.
16. Choi KY, Yang JD, Chung HY, Cho BC. Current concepts in the mandib- ular condyle fracture management part I: Overview of condylear fracture. Arch Plast Surg 2012;39:291–300.
17. Schneider M, Eckelt U. Classification of condylear process fractures. J Can Dent Assoc 2006;68:10–5.
18. Spiessl B, Schroll K. Spezielle Frakturen und Luxationslehre. A Short Manual In Five Volumes. Volume I / 1 Facial Skull. Stuttgart, New York: Georg Thieme Publishing House; 1972. p. 317.
19. Qureshi AA, Reddy UK, Warad NM, Badal S, Jamadar AA, Qurishi N. Intermaxillary fixation screws versus Erich arch bars in mandibular frac- tures: A comparative study and review of literatüre. Ann Maxillofac Surg 2016;6:25–30.
20. Farronato G, Grillo ME, Giannini L, Farronato D, Maspero C. Long- term results of early condylear fracture correction: Case report. Dent Traumatol 2009;25:e37–42.
21. Lloyd T, Nightingale C, Edler R. The use of vacuum-formed splints for temporary intermexillary fixation in the management of unilateral con- dylear fractures. Br J Oral Maxıllofac Surg 2001;39:301–3.
22. Mavili ME. Titanium screw implants for intermaxillary fixation of par- tially edentulous jaw. Ann Plas Surg 1997;39:353–9.
23. Hardt N, Gottsauner A. The treatment of mandibular fractures in chil- dren. J Craniomxillofac Surg 1993;21:214–9.
24. Sudheesh KM, Desai R, Sn SB, Subhalakshmi S. Evaluation of the man- dibular function, after nonsurgical treatment of unilateral subcondylear fracture: A 1-year follow-up study. Craniomaxillofac Trauma Reconstr 2016;9:229–34.
25. Defabianis P. TMJ fractures in children and adolescents: Treatments guidelines. J Clin Pediatr Dent 2003;27:191–9.
26. Karadede Mİ. Mandibular kondil histo anatomisinin ratlarda incelenme- si. D Ü Dişhek Fak Der 1995;6:1–6.
27. Karadede Mİ. Mandibular kondilin gelişim ve büyümesi kondilin gelişim ve büyümesi. D Ü Dişhek Fak Der 1995;6:7–10.
28. Karadede B, Karadede B, Karadede Mİ. In: Kalinowska IR, Orhan K, editors. Imaging of the Temporamandibular Joint, Bölüm adı: Growth, Development and Ossification of Mandible and Temporomandibular Joint. Vol. 1. Berlin: Springer 2019. p. 43-57.
29. Balaji SM. Modified endural approach fort the treatment of condylear fractures: A review of 75 cases. Indian J Dent Res 2016;27:305–11.
30. Takenoshita Y, Ishibashi H, Oka M. Comparison of functional recovery after nonsurgical and surgical treatments of condylear fractures. J Oral Maxillofac Surg Nov 1990;48:1191–5.
31. Liu CK, Tan XY, Xu J, Liu HW, Liu SX, Hu M. Evaluation of the clinical results of non-surgical treatment for pediatric sagittal fracture of mandib- ular condylee. Zhonghua Kou Qiang Yi Xue Za Zhi 2013;48:641–4.
32. Liu CK, Meng FW, Tan XY, Xu J, Liu HW, Liu SX et al. Clinical and radiological outcomes after treatment of sagital fracture of mandibular condylee (SFMC) by using occlusal splint in children. Br J Oral Maxillo- fac Surg 2014;52:144–8.
33. Boffano P, Roccia F, Schellino E, Baietto F, Gallesio C, Berrone S. Con- servative treatment of unilateral displaced condylear fractures in children with mixed dentition. J Craniofac Surg. 2012;23:e376–8.
34. Zhao YM, Yang J, Bai RC, Ge LH, Zhang Y. A retrospective study of using removable occlusal splints in the treatment of condylear fracture in children. J Craniomaxillofac Surg 2014;42:1078–82.
35. Wu Y, Long X, Deng M, Cai H, Meng Q, Li B. Screw-based intermax- illary traction combined with occlusal splint for treatment of pediatric mandibular condylear fracture. Zhongguo Xiu Fu Chong Jian Wai Ke Za Zhi 2015;29:397–401.
36. Xu Y, Gong SG, Zhu F, Li M, Biao X. Conservative orthodontic fixed ap- pliance management of pediatric mandibular bilateral condylear fracture. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2016;150:181–7.
37. Kaya B, Karadede Mİ. Temporomandibular eklem diskinin anterior dis- lokasyonunun tedavisinde öne konumlandırıcı splintlerin etkinliğinin araştırılması. Dicle Tıp Derg 1999;26:39–48.
38. Konaş E, Tunçbilek G, Kayıkçıoğlu A, Akcan CA, Kocadereli İ, Mavili ME. Splint-assisted reduction of comminuted maxilllofacial fractures. J Craniofac Sug 2011;22:1471–5.
39. Bruckmoser E, Undt G. Management and outcome of condylear fractures in children and adolescents: A review of the literature. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol 2012114 Suppl 5:S86–106.
40. Domingo F, Dale E, Gao C, Groves C, Stanley D, Maxwell RA, et al. A single-center retrospective review of postoperative infectious complica- tions in the surgical management of mandibular fractures: Postoperative antibiotics add no benefit. J Trauma Acute Care Surg 2016;81:1109−14.
41. Lizuka T, Lindqvist C, Hallikainen D, Paukku P. Infection after rigid in- ternal fixation of mandibular fractures: A clinical and radiologic study. J Oral Maxilllofac Surg 1991;49:585–93.
42. McLeod NM, Saeed NR. Treatment of fractures of the mandibular con- dylear head with ultrasound-activated resorbable pins: Early clinical ex- perience. J Oral Maxilllofac Surg 2016;54:872–7.
43. World Health Organization. Covid-19 Strategy Update, Draft as all 13 April 2020. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2020.

APA	Durmus Kocaaslan F, karadede ünal b, Çavuş Özkan M, Karadede B, ÇELEBİLER Ö (2022). Comparison of different treatment techniques in the mandibular condyle fracture. , 99 - 106. 10.14744/tjtes.2020.94992
Chicago	Durmus Kocaaslan Fatma Nihal,karadede ünal beyza,Çavuş Özkan Melekber,Karadede Berşan,ÇELEBİLER ÖZHAN BEKİR Comparison of different treatment techniques in the mandibular condyle fracture. (2022): 99 - 106. 10.14744/tjtes.2020.94992
MLA	Durmus Kocaaslan Fatma Nihal,karadede ünal beyza,Çavuş Özkan Melekber,Karadede Berşan,ÇELEBİLER ÖZHAN BEKİR Comparison of different treatment techniques in the mandibular condyle fracture. , 2022, ss.99 - 106. 10.14744/tjtes.2020.94992
AMA	Durmus Kocaaslan F,karadede ünal b,Çavuş Özkan M,Karadede B,ÇELEBİLER Ö Comparison of different treatment techniques in the mandibular condyle fracture. . 2022; 99 - 106. 10.14744/tjtes.2020.94992
Vancouver	Durmus Kocaaslan F,karadede ünal b,Çavuş Özkan M,Karadede B,ÇELEBİLER Ö Comparison of different treatment techniques in the mandibular condyle fracture. . 2022; 99 - 106. 10.14744/tjtes.2020.94992
IEEE	Durmus Kocaaslan F,karadede ünal b,Çavuş Özkan M,Karadede B,ÇELEBİLER Ö "Comparison of different treatment techniques in the mandibular condyle fracture." , ss.99 - 106, 2022. 10.14744/tjtes.2020.94992
ISNAD	Durmus Kocaaslan, Fatma Nihal vd. "Comparison of different treatment techniques in the mandibular condyle fracture". (2022), 99-106. https://doi.org/10.14744/tjtes.2020.94992

APA	Durmus Kocaaslan F, karadede ünal b, Çavuş Özkan M, Karadede B, ÇELEBİLER Ö (2022). Comparison of different treatment techniques in the mandibular condyle fracture. Ulusal Travma ve Acil Cerrahi Dergisi, 28(1), 99 - 106. 10.14744/tjtes.2020.94992
Chicago	Durmus Kocaaslan Fatma Nihal,karadede ünal beyza,Çavuş Özkan Melekber,Karadede Berşan,ÇELEBİLER ÖZHAN BEKİR Comparison of different treatment techniques in the mandibular condyle fracture. Ulusal Travma ve Acil Cerrahi Dergisi 28, no.1 (2022): 99 - 106. 10.14744/tjtes.2020.94992
MLA	Durmus Kocaaslan Fatma Nihal,karadede ünal beyza,Çavuş Özkan Melekber,Karadede Berşan,ÇELEBİLER ÖZHAN BEKİR Comparison of different treatment techniques in the mandibular condyle fracture. Ulusal Travma ve Acil Cerrahi Dergisi, vol.28, no.1, 2022, ss.99 - 106. 10.14744/tjtes.2020.94992
AMA	Durmus Kocaaslan F,karadede ünal b,Çavuş Özkan M,Karadede B,ÇELEBİLER Ö Comparison of different treatment techniques in the mandibular condyle fracture. Ulusal Travma ve Acil Cerrahi Dergisi. 2022; 28(1): 99 - 106. 10.14744/tjtes.2020.94992
Vancouver	Durmus Kocaaslan F,karadede ünal b,Çavuş Özkan M,Karadede B,ÇELEBİLER Ö Comparison of different treatment techniques in the mandibular condyle fracture. Ulusal Travma ve Acil Cerrahi Dergisi. 2022; 28(1): 99 - 106. 10.14744/tjtes.2020.94992
IEEE	Durmus Kocaaslan F,karadede ünal b,Çavuş Özkan M,Karadede B,ÇELEBİLER Ö "Comparison of different treatment techniques in the mandibular condyle fracture." Ulusal Travma ve Acil Cerrahi Dergisi, 28, ss.99 - 106, 2022. 10.14744/tjtes.2020.94992
ISNAD	Durmus Kocaaslan, Fatma Nihal vd. "Comparison of different treatment techniques in the mandibular condyle fracture". Ulusal Travma ve Acil Cerrahi Dergisi 28/1 (2022), 99-106. https://doi.org/10.14744/tjtes.2020.94992