Journals / Türk Plastik Rekonstrüktif ve Estetik Cerrahi Derg. / 2003 / Cilt: 11 - Sayı: 2

Comparison of open and closed treatment modalities for condylar fractures

Kondil kırıklarında açık ve kapalı tedavinin karşılaştırılması

Pages
102–108
Publication Date
2022-11-05
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

Conclusively, we recommend surgical treatment in the existence of condylar displacement and malocclusion and nonsurgical treatment when condylar displacement and malocclusion do not exist.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Standard treatment method for mandibular fractures is open reduction and rigid internal fixation in most plastic surgery centers.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Open reduction and rigid internal fixation versus closed treatment and intermaxillary fixation are still controversial. in this retrospective study total of 33 patients with condylar fractures who were admitted to the Department of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery at Gülhane Military Medical Academy between 1997-2001 were revieved.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Conclusively, we recommend surgical treatment in the existence of condylar displacement and malocclusion and nonsurgical treatment when condylar displacement and malocclusion do not exist.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:2001 Verileri
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

Standard treatment method for mandibular fractures is open reduction and rigid internal fixation in most plastic surgery centers. Hovever, standardization of treatment for condylar fractures has not been settled yet. Open reduction and rigid internal fixation versus closed treatment and intermaxillary fixation are still controversial. in this retrospective study total of 33 patients with condylar fractures who were admitted to the Department of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery at Gülhane Military Medical Academy between 1997-2001 were revieved. Patients were separated into two groups according to the treatment modalities, which were basically either open or closed treatments. in group one (21 patients), open reduction and internal fixation was performed on patients who had significant condylar displacement and malocclusion. in group two (12 patients), closed treatment was performed when there were no condylar displacement and malocclusion. Complications encountered in each groups vere compared and functional results vere statistically evaluated by using Wilcoxon test. Differences between each group vere statistically significant with respect to functional results. in the light of this evaluation, indications of open and closed treatment vere discussed. Conclusively, we recommend surgical treatment in the existence of condylar displacement and malocclusion and nonsurgical treatment when condylar displacement and malocclusion do not exist.

Özet

Mandibula kırıklarında çoğu merkezde uygulanan standart tedavi şekli açık redaksiyon ve rijit internal fiksasyondur. Ancak kondil bölgesi kırıklarındaki tedavi standartları henüz tam olarak ortaya konmamıştır. Kondil kırıklarında halen iki farklı tedavi yaklaşımı olarak açık redüksiyon ve internal fiksasyon (ARİF) ve kapalı tedavi yaklaşımı olarak intermaksiller flksasyonun (İMF) endikasyonları üzerindeki tartışmalar devam etmektedir. Çalışmamızda 1997-2001 yılları arasında GATA Plastik ve Rekonstrüktif Cerrahi Anabilim Dalında mandibula kandil kırığı nedeniyle tedavi edilen 33 hasta retrospektif olarak değerlendirildi. Uygulanan tedavi yöntemine göre hastalar ARİF uygulanan veya sadece intermaksiller fiksasyon (İMF) yapılarak kapalı tedavi uygulanan hastalar olmak üzere iki gruba ayrıldı. İleri derecede kondil deplasmanı ve maloklüzyon saptanan grup I hastalara (21 hasta) açık redüksiyon uygulandı. Kondil deplasmanı olmayan ve normoklüzyon mevcut olan grup II hastalarda ise (12 hasta) ise kapalı tedavi tercih edildi. Bu iki grupta görülen komplikasyonlar karşılaştırıldı ve elde edilen fonksiyonel kazançlar Wilcoxon test ile istatistiksel olarak değerlendirildi. Fonksiyonel kazanç bakımından gruplar arasında istatistiksel olarak anlamlı farklılıklar bulundu. Bu değerlendirmeler ışığında kapalı ve açık tedavinin endikasyonları tartışıldı. Sonuç olarak kondil kırıklarının tedavisinde kandil deplasmanı ve maloklüzyon yoksa kapalı tedaviyi; kondil deplasmanı ve maloklüzyon varsa açık tedaviyi önermekteyiz.

🔖

Cite This Article

DEVECİ, M., TÜREGÜN, M., DUMAN, H., BAYRAM, Y., IŞIK, S., ŞENGEZER, M., ÖZTÜRK, S. (2022). Comparison of open and closed treatment modalities for condylar fractures. Türk Plastik Rekonstrüktif ve Estetik Cerrahi Derg., Cilt: 11 - Sayı: 2, 102–108. https://ajindex.com/articles/641902

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (12)

  1. Daniel M.C, Mark A.A, Jonathan S.C: Changing concepts and controversies in the management of mandibular fractures. Clin Plast Surg 19:59-69, 1992
  2. Amaratunga NA de S: A study of condylar fractures in Sri Lankan patients with special refcrrence to the recent views on treatment, healing and scquelea. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg 25:391, 1987
  3. Takenoshita Y, Ishibashi H, Oka M: Comparison of functional recovery after nonsurgical and surgical treatment of condylar fractures. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 48:1191, 1990
  4. Konstantinovic V, Dimitrijevic B: Surgical versus conservative treatment of unilateral condylar process fractures: Clinical and radiographic evaluation of 80 patients. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 50:349, 1992
  5. Robert V. Walker: Condylar fractures: Nonsurgical management. J Oral Maxilloiac Sıırg 52:1185-118S, 1994
  6. Matthew B. Hall: Condylar fractures: Surgical management. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 52:1189-1192,1994
  7. Ellis E., McFaddcn D., Simon P., Throckmorton G.: Surgical complications with open treatment ofmandibular condylar process fractures. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 58:950-958,2000
  8. Hammer B., SchierR, Prcin J.: Osteosyn thesis of condylar neck fructures: A Review of 30 patients. Br J Oral Maxilofac Surg 35:288,1997
  9. Widmark G., Begenholm T., Kahnberg KE.: Open reduction of subcondylar fractures: A study of functional rehabilitation, lnt J Oral Maxillofac Surg 25:107, 1996
  10. Worsae N, Jens J Thorn: Surgical versus nonsurgical treatment of unilateral dislocated low subcondylar fractures: A clinical study of 52 cases. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 52:353-360, 1994
  11. Duman H., Bozkurt M., Nişancı M., Külahçı Y., Deveci M., Türegün M., Işık S., Şengezer M.: 366 mandibula frakrürü olgusunun analizi. Türk Plast Ccrr Derg 9(3): 149-157,2001
  12. Dahlstrom L, Kahnberg IC, Lindahl L: 15 years follow up on condylar fractures. Trauma; Preprosthctic surgery. lnt J Oral Maxillofac Surg 18:18,1989.