Technic for Open Reduction of Fractures of the Mandibular Condyle

Henny, Fred A.

doi:10.1097/00006534-195112000-00018

Cited by 4 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Decades ago, the incidence of mandibular head fractures had not yet been reported [ 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 32 ], while the frequency of diagnoses of all types of mandibular condylar process fractures was almost twice as low as it is today [ 32 , 33 , 34 ]. Sometimes a surprisingly low incidence was reported, e.g., 16.5% among all mandibular fractures [ 35 ].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This phenomenon is a certain limitation of the literature review presented here. Note, however, that groundbreaking articles from more than 50 years ago are cited here [ 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 9 , 13 , 16 , 38 , 56 , 57 ]. It is concerning that citations are rising by 5.6% per year, with them doubling every 12 years among scientific papers with a gap in the citation of brand new or very old research [ 58 ]; the strength of this paper is that there are also many citations of research that is younger than six years old [ 1 , 14 , 17 , 18 , 23 , 24 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 34 , 36 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 , 48 , 49 , 50 , 51 , 52 , 53 , 54 , 56 ].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The main focus of this research is the frequency of these types of fractures, specifically the current overall incidence and the predicted incidence in patients with condylar process fractures in hospital emergency rooms. It is a fairly common fracture that has been debated for decades [ 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 ]. It concerns classification [ 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 ], as well as treatment techniques [ 8 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 ].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Current Frequency of Mandibular Condylar Process Fractures

Kozakiewicz

Walczyk

2023

JCM

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

There are significant discrepancies in the reported prevalence of condylar process fractures among all mandibular fractures (16.5–56%) in the available literature. In addition, it seems that the actual number of difficult-to-treat fractures of the mandibular head is unknown. The purpose of this study is to present the current incidence of the different types of mandibular process fractures with a special focus on mandibular head fractures. The medical records of 386 patients with single or multiple mandibular fractures were reviewed. Of the fractures found, 58% were body fractures, 32% were angle fractures, 7% were ramus fractures, 2% were coronoid process fractures, and 45% were condylar process fractures. The most common fracture of the condylar process was a basal fracture (54% of condylar fractures), and the second most common fracture was a fracture of the mandibular head (34% of condylar process fractures). Further, 16% of patients had low-neck fractures, and 16% had high-neck fractures. Of the patients with head fractures, 8% had a type A fracture, 34% had a type B fracture, and 73% had a type C fracture. A total of 89.6% of the patients were surgically treated with ORIF. Mandibular head fractures are not as rare as previously thought. Head fractures occur twice as often in the pediatric population than in adults. A mandibular fracture is most likely related to a mandible head fracture. Such evidence can guide the diagnostic procedure in the future.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Current Frequency of Mandibular Condylar Process Fractures

Kozakiewicz

Walczyk

2023

JCM

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Review of the literature suggested a clinical consensus for the use of ORIF for displaced and dislocated condyle fractures and CR for non-dislocated, non-displaced cases. It was thus not ethically possible to treat displaced and dislocated fracture patients by CR, and non-dislocated fractures by ORIF 2,22,30 .…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Traditionally, these fractures were treated by closed reduction (CR) with varying degrees of mandibulo-maxillary fixation (MMF) or guided occlusion. However, clinicians have frequently attempted to obtain more predictable results by open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) 2,3,22,30,31 . A questionnaire survey of the International Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons (IA-OMS) surgeons published in 1998 shows the increasing popularity of ORIF: in general, 57% of surgeons prefer ORIF compared to 40% in favor of closed reduction 2 .…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%