الفهرس 
Range of mandibular motion of unilateral displaced sub-condylar fracture following open reduction and internal fixation versus closed treatment
AbstractOnly 14 pages are availabe for public view
 |  | from | 211 |  |  |
| | | from | 211 | | |
Abstract
Background: Treatment of fracture condyle has been a matter of debate over the past years. Many surgeons prefer the use of closed treatment (CT) and mentioned no clinical significance between CT and open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF). The use of CT eliminates the morbidity associated with the surgical procedure and anesthesia as well as the complications of the surgery itself which includes facial nerve affection and post-surgical scarring. However, CT is not devoid of drawbacks. Prolonged periods of maxillo-mandibular fixation add on to the morbidity of the patient during the length of the treatment. Risk of aspiration pneumonia and asphyxia associated with CT is not to be neglected. Therefore, many surgeons have found ORIF of condylar fracture a better treatment option. The contradicting results that are reported by various studies whether in favor of ORIF or CT could be greatly be due to the lack of standardization of variables related to the participants. In our systematic review, we have made an effort to include and standardize the type, level and degree of displacement of the fracture. This was done in a hope to minimize the participant related variables that can eminently alter the outcomes