Tanja Berner1, Harald Essig2, Paul Schumann2, Michael Blumer2, Martin Lanzer2, Martin Rücker2, Thomas Gander3. 1. Faculty of Medicine, Zentrum für Zahnmedizin, University of Zürich, Zürich, Switzerland. 2. Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, University Hospital of Zürich, Zürich, Switzerland. 3. Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, University Hospital of Zürich, Zürich, Switzerland. Electronic address: Thomas.Gander@usz.ch.
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.
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.
Authors: Florine M Weinberg; Jorine A Vermaire; Tymour Forouzanfar; Antoine J W P Rosenberg; Caroline M Speksnijder Journal: J Oral Rehabil Date: 2019-12-11 Impact factor: 3.837