Closed versus open treatment of mandibular condylar process fractures: A meta-analysis of retrospective and prospective studies. Issue 8 (October 2015)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Berner, Tanja; Essig, Harald; Schumann, Paul; Blumer, Michael; Lanzer, Martin; Rücker, Martin; Gander, Thomas
• Is Part Of: Journal of cranio-maxillofacial surgery. Volume 43:Issue 8(2015:Dec.)
• Page Start: 1404
• Page End: 1408
• Publication Date: 2015-10
• Subjects: Mandibular condylar fracture -- Open treatment -- Closed treatment -- Meta-analysis; 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.2015.07.027
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1010-5182

Abstract

Abstract: Introduction: The treatment of fractures of the mandibular process remains controversial, although there is a trend towards open reduction and internal fixation. This study compared open and closed treatments and assessed the results with a meta-analysis. Materials and methods: A literature search of PubMed found eight studies that met the search criteria and were included in the meta-analysis. Results: The studies increasingly suggest better results for open treatment, in terms of mouth opening, protrusion, laterotrusion, pain, and malocclusion. In the meta-analysis, the outcome was significantly better for laterotrusion and protrusion in patients treated by open reduction and internal fixation. Conclusion: Due to the different study protocols and lack of information on classification, follow-up time, and inclusion criteria, comparison of the studies remains difficult and further prospective, randomized studies should examine these issues.