This longitudinal study compared functional, anatomical, and quality of life (QoL) outcomes after closed reduction (CR) versus open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) of condylar head fractures (CHFs). The aim was to determine predictability of results and to establish prognostic factors for poor outcomes, thus allowing therapeutic decision making between CR and ORIF.All fractures of the non-surgical group were treated by CR with maxillomandibular fixation (CR-MMF) according to an managed analogically. Morphological and functional results were acquired using axiography and clinical functional diagnostics, as well as MRI in problematic cases. Outcomes were compared with those of a collective of patients treated by ORIF with small fragment screws (SFS), according to a uniform standard.A total of 26 patients with 29 unilateral and bilateral CHFs of the non-surgical group were examined over a period of 28.5 months after completion of therapy and compared with a collective of 54 patients with 73 CHFs treated by ORIF. Statistically significant differences were found between both groups in protrusion and mediotrusion on the fracture side, in favour of ORIF. Significantly more patients in the ORIF group were symptom free in terms of the Helkimo dysfunction index and the RDC TMD compared with conservatively treated patients. Associations between Angle class and Helkimo dysfunction index, and between occlusion or number of teeth and pain after CT, could be confirmed.Given their respective indications, both treatment options demonstrated acceptable results in the majority of cases. However, for therapeutic decision making, it is crucial that the long-term results after CR are significantly less predictable. Our study showed only few positive prognostic factors for a stable functional outcome after CR such as isolated CHFs with stable occlusal conditions in younger patients (<25 years).
Read full abstract