Page 144 - Open versus closed Mandibular condyle fractures

Chapter 4.3 Open versus Closed
Table 3. Condylar volumes for the total study group
Volume (mm3) SD (mm3)
Indep. t-test OvC
Pre and post ‘couples’ (n=22)
Post-treatment
F (n=49)
1726
544
P = 0.182 Post-treatment F (n=22)
1663
543
P = 0.010*
- -
NF (n=49)
1879 607
P = 0.900
NF (n=22)
1751
630
P = <0.001*
1497
712 P = 0.039* 1807
618 P = <0.001*
154
Volume (mm3) SD (mm3)
Paired t-test (pre NF, post F NF)
Open (n=4) (volume mm3)
SD (mm3)
Closed (n=18) (volume mm3)
SD (mm3)
and
Pre-treatment
F NF (n=22)
- 1927 - 658
- 1668
670 1985
- 661
Open (pre minus post NF)
(volume mm3)
SD (mm3)
Closed (pre-post NF) (volume mm3)
SD (mm3)
Indep. T-test OvC (pre minus post NF)
171 97
178 135
P = 0.922
F, fractured side; NF, non-fractured; OvC, open vs closed; SD, standard deviation; *P≤0.05
Relationship between condylar volume, MFIQ scores, and the MAT
No correlation was found between the post-treatment MFIQ scores and condylar volume on either the non-fractured side (P = 0.235) or the fractured side (P = 0.477) (Table 4). There was no significant correlation between the outcome of the MAT and post-treatment condylar volume on the non-fractured side (r = -0.248, P = 0.085). However, there was a significant correlation between performance on the MAT and the post-treatment condylar volume on the fractured side (r = -0.332, P = 0.020). The MAT result was significantly better in patients with larger condyles, i.e., with more volume.