Outcomes of Open Versus Closed Treatment of Mandibular Subcondylar Fractures: A Prospective Randomized Study

PurposeTo compare open reduction and internal fixation with closed treatment and maxillomandibular fixation for the management of subcondylar fractures of the mandible.Patients and MethodsForty patients with subcondylar fractures of the mandible were evaluated. All fractures were displaced; either angulated between 10° and 35° or the ascending ramus was shortened by more than 2 mm. Clinical and radiographic evaluation was performed 6 months after the trauma. Clinical parameters included mouth opening, protrusion, laterotrusion, deviation on mouth opening, and occlusion. Radiographic parameters included level of the fracture, deviation of the fragment, and shortening of the ascending ramus. Subjective parameters included pain according to a visual analog scale. Nonparametric data were compared for statistical significance with a χ2 analysis and parametric data with an independent samples t test (P < .05).ResultsCorrect anatomical position of the fragments was achieved significantly more accurately in the operative group in contrast to the closed treatment group. Regarding mouth opening/lateral excursion/protrusion, significant (P = .00) differences were observed between both groups (open 39.6/12.5/5.9 mm vs closed 33.5/9.8/4.1 mm). The visual analog scoring revealed significant (P = .00) difference with less pain in the operative treatment group (1.1 open vs 5.2 closed). No statistically significant difference was found between the 2 groups for occlusion (P = .86).ConclusionBoth treatment options for condylar fractures of the mandible yielded acceptable results. However, operative treatment was superior in all objective and subjective functional parameters except occlusion.