2011
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijom.2010.09.002
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Functional outcomes following surgical treatment of bilateral mandibular condylar fractures

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3

Citation Types

0
31
1
1

Year Published

2014
2014
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
9

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 51 publications
(37 citation statements)
references
References 30 publications
0
31
1
1
Order By: Relevance
“…Although many studies have searched for the best and most suitable treatment, the issue remains controversial (Palmieri et al, 1999;Park et al, 2010;Sharif et al, 2010). In both types of treatment complications occur, such as deviation of the chin and/or facial asymmetry (Park et al, 2010;Yang et al, 2002;Bormann et al, 2009); reduced mandibular motility (Palmieri et al, 1999;Niezen et al, 2010); dysfunction of the temporomandibular joint (Silvennoinen et al, 1998;Gupta et al, 2012); ankylosis (Gupta et al, 2012); chronic pain (Chen et al, 2011); and malocclusion (Marker et al, 2000;Bhagol et al, 2011;Silvennoinen et al, 1998;Zachariades et al, 2006;Forouzanfar et al, 2013). When conservative treatment of a condylar fracture is preferred over ORIF, many modalities for obtaining IMF can be considered (e.g.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Although many studies have searched for the best and most suitable treatment, the issue remains controversial (Palmieri et al, 1999;Park et al, 2010;Sharif et al, 2010). In both types of treatment complications occur, such as deviation of the chin and/or facial asymmetry (Park et al, 2010;Yang et al, 2002;Bormann et al, 2009); reduced mandibular motility (Palmieri et al, 1999;Niezen et al, 2010); dysfunction of the temporomandibular joint (Silvennoinen et al, 1998;Gupta et al, 2012); ankylosis (Gupta et al, 2012); chronic pain (Chen et al, 2011); and malocclusion (Marker et al, 2000;Bhagol et al, 2011;Silvennoinen et al, 1998;Zachariades et al, 2006;Forouzanfar et al, 2013). When conservative treatment of a condylar fracture is preferred over ORIF, many modalities for obtaining IMF can be considered (e.g.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Mandibular fracture represents the most common facial bone injury (57 %) (11,23,30). Mandibular condylar fractures account for between 21 % and 52 % of all mandibular fractures (11,23,30).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Mandibular condylar fractures account for between 21 % and 52 % of all mandibular fractures (11,23,30). The treatment of mandibular condyle fractures is still controversial.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…It should be taken into account, however, that the surgical fixation of fragments, although it enables early TMJ mobilization, also involves the potential risk of damaging the structures of the joint area such as the facial nerve, masticatory muscles or articular disc, which may have an influence on the later rehabilitation of the stomatognathic system. [7][8][9] The specificity of mandibular fracture treatment, and particularly of condylar fractures, consists of, on one hand, the early repositioning and fixation of bone fragments, and on the other hand, the earliest possible mandibular mo- A thorough physical examination, including elements of the functional test of the stomatognathic system, were carried out in each patient. The subsequent stages of the examination included: a general and detailed anamnesis, an analysis of the trajectory and range of mandibular opening, palpation of the masticatory muscles and palpation and auscultatory examination of the temporomandibular joints, and an intraoral check (occlusion analysis, marking of the tooth chart).…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%