Consensus or controversy? The classification and treatment decision-making by 491 maxillofacial surgeons from around the world in three cases of a unilateral mandibular condyle fracture. Issue 10 (December 2015)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Kommers, Sofie C.; Boffano, Paolo; Forouzanfar, Tymour
• Is Part Of: Journal of cranio-maxillofacial surgery. Volume 43:Issue 10(2016:Mar.)
• Page Start: 1952
• Page End: 1960
• Publication Date: 2015-12
• Subjects: Mandibular condyle fracture -- Treatment decision -- Agreement; Skull -- Surgery -- Periodicals; Maxilla -- Surgery -- Periodicals; Face -- Surgery -- Periodicals; Surgery, Plastic -- Periodicals; Maxilla -- surgery -- Periodicals; Face -- surgery -- Periodicals; Skull -- surgery -- Periodicals; Oral Surgical Procedures -- Periodicals; Reconstructive Surgical Procedures -- Periodicals; Surgery, Plastic -- Periodicals; Surgery, Oral -- Periodicals; Electronic journals; 617.514
• DOI: 10.1016/j.jcms.2015.08.031
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1010-5182

Abstract

Abstract: Purpose: Many studies are available in the literature on both classification and treatment of unilateral mandibular condyle fractures. To date however, controversy regarding the best treatment for unilateral mandibular condyle fractures remains. Material and methods: In this study, an attempt was made to quantify the level of agreement between a sample of maxillofacial surgeons worldwide, on the classification and treatment decisions in three different unilateral mandibular condyle fracture cases. Results: In total, 491 of 3044 participants responded. In all three mandibular condyle fracture cases, a fairly high level of disagreement was found. Only in the case of a subcondylar fracture, assuming dysocclusion was present, more than 81% of surgeons agreed that the best treatment would be open reduction and internal fixation. Conclusions: Based on the study results, there is considerable variation among surgeons worldwide with regard to treatment of unilateral mandibular condyle fracture. 3D imaging in higher fractures tends to lead to more invasive treatment decisions.