Evaluation of Functional Therapy Vs Intermaxillary Fixation in Condylar Fracture Treatment | ||||
| Al-Azhar Journal of Dentistry | ||||
| Volume 2018, Issue 10, October 2018 | ||||
| DOI: 10.21608/adjg.2018.109383 | ||||
 View on SCiNiTO | ||||
| Authors | ||||
| Al-Shaimaa Abd El Aziem1; Nahed Adly2; Youssef El-Mansi3; Ghada Khalifa4 | ||||
| 1Dentist at Bab El-Sha’ria Hospital, Al Azhar University. | ||||
| 2Lecturer of Oral & Maxillofacial Surgery, Faculty of Dental Medicine for Girls, Al - Azhar University. | ||||
| 3Lieutenant Colonel, Ph.D.s Oral & Maxillofacial Surgery, Armed Forces Hospitals. | ||||
| 4Assistant Professor of Oral & Maxillofacial Surgery, Faculty of Dental Medicine for Girls, Al - Azhar University. | ||||
| Abstract | ||||
| Purpose: To compare the outcomes after rigid intermaxillary fixation (IMF) versus functional therapy (FT) in patients with mandibular condylar fractures (CFs). Patients and Methods: A prospective comparative study with 3 follow-ups (FU) at 1, 3 and 6 months was undertaken in 2 groups, which exclusively privileged either surgical or conservative treatment due to different therapeutic agendas. Patients from Group1 (GI) received IMF for 10 days, followed by physiotherapy, whereas those in Group2 (GII) had undergone FT for 21 days via guiding elastics. In both groups, all concomitant fractures (if present) were treated by open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF). Patients with unilateral CFs, with or without concomitant mandibular fractures showing one or more of the following conditions were included: adult patients (>18 years of age) indicated for closed treatment, and sufficient dentition for arch bars application. Previous history of tempromandibular joint (TMJ) dysfunction, severe pre-traumatic skeletal dysgnathia, and mid face fractures was excluded. Results: 12 patients (6 in GI and 6 in GII) were included. The clinical TMJ Dysfunction Index of Helkimo (CTDI-H) was equal in both groups at 1 month FU, it became worse in GI than in the GII at 3 month FU, corresponding to better function on the short-term. At the 6 month FU, there were better values in the GII. The Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) scans revealed that the trauma caused disc displacement for 33.3% of GI and 66.7 % of GII. At 6 months FU, 33.3% of GI had improvement in the degree of the disc displacement, but they still had internal derangement with reduction. In GII, 2 out of 4 retained the normal position of the disc and the others had improvement in the disc displacement degree only. Conclusion: Both treatment options may yield acceptable results, however, FT seems to be the appropriate treatment for rapid recovery of range of mandibular motion (ROMM), relief of pain during palpation of masticatory muscles, and recovery of disc position during FU. Its success depends on the passive maneuver of physiotherapy if there is no restricted maximum interincisal opening (MIO) and it should be in a forcible manner in case of restricted MIO. | ||||
| Keywords | ||||
| Condylar fractures; Functional therapy; Intermaxillary Fixation; Clinical TMJ dysfunction index of Helkimo; Magnetic Resonance Imaging; Physiotherapy | ||||
|
Statistics Article View: 23 |
||||
