Commentary regarding the publication “Fractures of the mandibular condyle—A review of 466 cases. Literature review, reflections on treatment and proposals” by N. ZACHARIADES et al.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcms.2006.07.855Get rights and content

Summary

The paper by Zachariades et al. presents a considerable contribution with regards to the epidemiology of condylar fractures. Hence, it is not possible to draw conclusions from this study with regards to the indication of open reduction or closed treatment. Only well-documented prospective and, if possible, randomized studies will be able to help us in the fracture. In the first prospective randomized study [Eckelt U, Schneider M, Erasmus F, Gerlach KL, Kuhlisch E, Loukota R, Rasse M, Schubert J, Terheyden H: Open versus closed treatment of fractures of the mandibular condylar process – a prospective randomized multi-centre study. J Cranio Maxillofac Surg 34: 306–314, 2006], advantages were observed for the open reduction and fixation of displaced fractures with stable osteosynthesis.

Cited by (12)

  • Will Closed Treatment Provide Better Mandibular Motion Than Open Reduction and Internal Fixation in Cases of Unilateral Displaced Subcondylar Fracture? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

    2020, Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery
    Citation Excerpt :

    In their review, they included 4 studies that included participants with bilateral fractures.22,40,69,70 Moreover, 4 studies included patients with condylar head fractures,22,30,40,55 and 1 study included some participants with nondisplaced CPFs.70 Although the results for each fracture level was reported separately in 3 of the studies,30,40,55 no attempt was made to perform a separate meta-analysis for each fracture level.

  • Treatment of low subcondylar fractures - A 5-year retrospective study

    2013, International Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery
  • Aetiology, pattern and treatment of mandibular condylar fractures in 549 patients: A 22-year retrospective study

    2013, Journal of Cranio-Maxillofacial Surgery
    Citation Excerpt :

    The lack of consistency of terminology among clinicians, authors, and literature made it difficult to decide the therapeutic modality and assess therapy outcomes (Haug and Brandt, 2007). Even the question as to whether it is a subcondylar fracture or a fracture of the condylar neck needs an exact definition (Eckelt, 2006). Loukota et al (Loukota et al., 2005) reported a simple and precise method to classify condylar fractures as proposed by the Strasbourg Osteosynthesis Research Group (SORG), which is a simple method to define condylar head, neck, and subcondylar fractures, and can provide a guideline to evaluate the severity of fracture and risk of associated fractures (Cenzi et al., 2009).

View all citing articles on Scopus
View full text