Abstract ▼ AI-Helper

Purpose: The choice of open versus closed reduction for mandibular subcondylar fracture is a debatable issue. To evaluate the advantage of open approach to closed method with IMF(intermaxillary fixation), we conducted a retrospective study to compare the outcomes of each method. Methods: From 2002 t...

Purpose: The choice of open versus closed reduction for mandibular subcondylar fracture is a debatable issue. To evaluate the advantage of open approach to closed method with IMF(intermaxillary fixation), we conducted a retrospective study to compare the outcomes of each method. Methods: From 2002 to 2006, 29 patients with mandibular subcondylar fractures were treated by open or closed reduction. 17 patients were treated by open reduction and 12 patients by closed reduction and IMF. Each group was assessed for duration of mandibular immobilization, incidences of buccal palsy, malocclusion, TMJ(temporomandibular joint) pain, and deviation of the mandible on mouth opening. Results: All cases showed accurate reduction in anatomical position, no significant displacement and no deviation on mouth opening during the follow-up period. IMF period is statistically shorter in open reduction (p<0.05). Differences in incidence of other complications were not significant statistically. Conclusion: As there are significant independent morbidities associated with IMF which requires postoperative rehabilitation, prolonged temporomandibular immobilization should not be overlooked. Some patients with poor compliances will not tolerate IMF in nonsurgical treatment. In the aspect of patient's convenience and early recovery by short IMF period, open reduction would be recommended as a better treatment method.

주제어