EVALUATION OF BILATERAL CONDYLAR FRACTURE TREATMENT OF MANDIBLE AT VIET DUC UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL

Thị Ngọc Linh Đỗ , Thái Thịnh, Hải Sơn Ngô, Hồng Quân Dương, Hồng Hà Nguyễn

Main Article Content

Abstract

Objectives: To evaluate the results of bilateral condylar fracture treatment of mandible. Methods: A clinical description, retrospective study of 51 patients between 01/2017 – 01/2023. Results: We had 51 patients, 34 male patients,17 female patients. The average age of group:28,2. The average follow-up time: 22,2 months. The results of treatment: Malocclusion (7,8%); Good mouth opening (76,5%), average mouth opening (23,5%). Complications: pain and movement disorder (15,7%). General treatment results: Good (66,7%), Fair (25,5%), Bad (7,8%). Conclusions:  Bilateral condylar fracture must be diagnosed correctly and proper treated to minimize the complications to the patients.

Article Details

References

1. Seshappa KN, Rangaswamy S (2020). Bilateral mandibular condyle fractures: Should we open both? Natl J Maxillofac Surg (2020) Jul-Dec; 11(2): 285-288
2. George N, Brandon J, et al (2019). Establishing a Protocol for Closed Treatment of Mandibular Condyle Fractures with Dynamic Elastic Therapy. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open. 2019 Dec; 7(12): e2506.
3. Viveka N, Rajan R, Ganti S (2013). Analysis of Patterns and Treatment Strategies for Mandibular Condyle Fractures: Review of 175 Condyle Fractures with Review of Literature. J Maxillofac Oral Surg. 2013 Sep; 12(3): 315–320
4. Choi K.Y, Yang J.D, Chung HY (2012). Current Concepts in the Mandibular Condyle Fracture Management. Arch Plast Surg. 2012 Jul; 39(4): 291–300
5. Ellis E, Simon P, Throckmorton GS (2000). Occlusal results after open or closed treatment of fractures of the mandibular condylar process. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2000;58:260–268
6. García-Guerrero I, Ramírez JM, Gómez de Diego R, Martínez-González JM, Poblador MS, Lancho JL, et al (2018). Complications in the treatment of mandibular condylar fractures: Surgical versus conservative treatment. Ann Anat. 2018;216:60–8