Page 119 - Open versus closed Mandibular condyle fractures

Questionnaire
Graded Chronic Pain scale version 2.0 (GCP)
Jaw Functional Limitations Scale 20 items (JFLS-20) Patients Health Questionnaire (PHQ-9)
General Anxiety Disorder (GAD-7)
Patients Health Questionnaire (PHQ-15)
Oral Behaviors Checklist (OBC)
Closed treatment
0.8 (± 0.6) 6.8 (± 3.8) 3.2 (± 1.0) 1.9 (± 0.8) 5.0 (± 1.6)
18.7 (± 4.0)
Open treatment
0.4 (±0.7) 2.3 (± 0.7) 2.8 (± 0.6) 2.2 (± 0.5) 4.0 (± 0.5)
20.4 (± 1.6)
P-value a
0.789 0.358 0.553 0.458 0.845
0.553
Clinical outcome in treatment of unilateral condylar fractures
Table 2. Results of DC/TMD Axis II questionnaires; values are presented as the mean (SD)
DC/TMD, Diagnostic Criteria for Temporomandibular Disorders; SD, standard deviation. aMann–Whitney U-test.
Sunnybrook facial grading system
All patients scored the maximum score on the SB; no permanent facial nerve weakness was found in the patients included in this study.
Surgical complications after open treatment
The following results were found in the assessment of surgical complications: temporary weakness of the facial nerve in 7.1% (n = 1), permanent weakness of the facial nerve in 0%, hematoma in 0%, wound infection in 0%, sialocele in 7.1% (n = 1), salivary fistula in 7.1% (n = 1), disturbance of the sensory component of the great auricular nerve in 0%, material failure in 7.1% (n = 1), and unsatisfactory scarring in 0% (Table 3).
Table 3. Complications found in patients who underwent open treatment (n = 14)
4.1
Facial nerve temporary weakness Facial nerve permanent weakness Hematoma
Wound infection
Sialocele
Salivary fistula
Greater auricular nerve weakness Material failure
Unsatisfactory scarring
DISCUSSION
Number of patients Percentage
1 7.1% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 1 7.1% 1 7.1% 0 0% 1 7.1% 0 0%
When using the MFIQ as a benchmark, closed treatment was found to be preferable to open treatment (P = 0.023).
127