Sanjay Rastogi1, Siddharth Sharma2, Sanjeev Kumar3, Mahendra P Reddy4, B Niranjanaprasad Indra5. 1. Reader, Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery and Oral Implantology, Institute of Dental Sciences, Moradabad, Uttar Pradesh, India. Electronic address: docos79@gmail.com. 2. Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeon and Oral Implantologist, Institute of Dental Sciences, Moradabad, Uttar Pradesh, India. 3. Professor and Head, Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery and Oral Implantology, ITS-Dental College, Moradabad, Uttar Pradesh, India. 4. Professor and Head, Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery and Oral Implantology, Jaipur Dental College, Moradabad, Uttar Pradesh, India. 5. Reader, Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery and Oral Implantology, Institute of Dental Sciences, Bareilly, Uttar Pradesh, India.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To compare the outcome of the open method versus the closed method of treatment for mandibular condylar fracture. STUDY DESIGN:Fifty patients with fractures of the mandibular condylar processes were evaluated. All fractures were displaced, with a degree of deviation between the condylar fragment and the ascending ramus of 10 to 45 degrees (mediolaterally). The patients were randomly divided into two groups, with group 1 receiving open reduction internal fixation and group 2 receiving closed reduction. The follow-up was done over the period of 6 months. RESULTS: Statistically significant improvement was seen in group 1 compared with group 2 in terms of anatomic reduction of the condyle, shortening of the ascending ramus, occlusal status, and deviation on mouth opening. CONCLUSIONS: A statistically significant difference was seen in the patients treated with the open method, with improved temporomandibular joint functions and fewer short- and long-term complications compared with those treated with the closed method.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVE: To compare the outcome of the open method versus the closed method of treatment for mandibular condylar fracture. STUDY DESIGN: Fifty patients with fractures of the mandibular condylar processes were evaluated. All fractures were displaced, with a degree of deviation between the condylar fragment and the ascending ramus of 10 to 45 degrees (mediolaterally). The patients were randomly divided into two groups, with group 1 receiving open reduction internal fixation and group 2 receiving closed reduction. The follow-up was done over the period of 6 months. RESULTS: Statistically significant improvement was seen in group 1 compared with group 2 in terms of anatomic reduction of the condyle, shortening of the ascending ramus, occlusal status, and deviation on mouth opening. CONCLUSIONS: A statistically significant difference was seen in the patients treated with the open method, with improved temporomandibular joint functions and fewer short- and long-term complications compared with those treated with the closed method.