Surgical Management of a Mandible Subcondylar Fracture

 

 Permissions and Reprints

Open reduction and anatomic reduction can create better function for the temporomandibular joint, compared with closed treatment in mandible fracture surgery. Therefore, the double miniplate fixation technique via mini-retromandibular incision was used in order to make the most stable fixation when performing subcondylar fracture surgery. Those approaches provide good visualization of the subcondyle from the posterior edge of the ramus, allow the surgeon to work perpendicularly to the fracture, and enable direct fracture management. Understanding the biomechanical load in the fixation of subcondylar fractures is also necessary in order to optimize fixation methods. Therefore, we measured the biomechanical loads of four different plate fixation techniques in the experimental model regarding mandibular subcondylar fractures. It was found that the loads measured in the two-plate fixation group with one dynamic compression plate (DCP) and one adaption plate showed the highest deformation and failure loads among the four fixation groups. The loads measured in the one DCP plate fixation group showed higher deformation and failure loads than the loads measured in the two adaption plate fixation group. Therefore, we conclude that the selection of the high profile plate (DCP) is also important in order to create a stable load in the subcondylar fracture.

This article was invited as part of a panel presentation, which was one of the most highly rated sessions by participants, at the 69th Congress of the Korean Society of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgeons on November 11, 2011 in Seoul, Korea.

Publication History

Received: 05 April 2012

Accepted: 22 June 2012

Article published online:
01 May 2022

© 2012. The Korean Society of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgeons. This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial License, permitting unrestricted noncommercial use, distribution, and reproduction so long as the original work is given appropriate credit. Contents may not be used for commercial purposes. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/)

Thieme Medical Publishers, Inc.
333 Seventh Avenue, 18th Floor, New York, NY 10001, USA

• REFERENCES

• 1 Lee HC, Kang DH, Koo SH. et al. Outcome of open reduction via retromandibular approach for mandibular subcondyle fracture. J Korean Soc Plast Reconstr Surg 2005; 32: 739-743
  Google Scholar
• 2 Jang JY, Kang DH. Comparison study of open reduction and closed reduction in treatment of mandibular subcondylar fractures. J Korean Cleft Palate-Craniofac Assoc 2008; 9: 51-54
  Google Scholar
• 3 Zide MF, Kent JN. Indications for open reduction of mandibular condyle fractures. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 1983; 41: 89-98
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 4 Kleinheinz J, Meyer C. Fractures of the mandibular condyle: basic considerations and treatment. 2009. London: Quintessence Publishing Compan;
  Google Scholar
• 5 Lee W, Kang DH. Study of the plating methods in the experimental model of mandibular subcondyle fracture. J Korean Cleft Palate-Craniofac Assoc 2011; 12: 12-16
  Google Scholar
• 6 Hinds EC, Girotti WJ. Vertical subcondylar osteotomy: a reappraisal. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol 1967; 24: 164-170
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 7 Cienfuegos R, Carl-Peter Cornelius CP, Ellis 3rd E. et al. Mandible: retromandibular approaches [Internet]. 2011. Switzerland: AO Foundation; cited 2012 Jun 27 Available from: https://www2.aofoundation.org/wps/portal/surgery
  Google Scholar
• 8 Tang W, Gao C, Long J. et al. Application of modified retromandibular approach indirectly from the anterior edge of the parotid gland in the surgical treatment of condylar fracture. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2009; 67: 552-558
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 9 Perthes G. Uber frakturen und luxationsfrakturen des kieferkopfchens und ihre operative behandlung. Arch Klin Chir 1924; 133: 418-433
  Google Scholar
• 10 Choi BH, Kim KN, Kim HJ. et al. Evaluation of condylar neck fracture plating techniques. J Craniomaxillofac Surg 1999; 27: 109-112
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 11 Tominaga K, Habu M, Khanal A. et al. Biomechanical evaluation of different types of rigid internal fixation techniques for subcondylar fractures. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2006; 64: 1510-1516
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 12 Silverman SL. A new operation for displaced fractures at the neck of the mandibular condyle. Dental Cosmos 1925; 67: 876-877
  Google Scholar
• 13 Throckmorton GS, Dechow PC. In vitro strain measurements in the condylar process of the human mandible. Arch Oral Biol 1994; 39: 853-867
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 14 Meyer C, Kahn JL, Boutemi P. et al. Photoelastic analysis of bone deformation in the region of the mandibular condyle during mastication. J Craniomaxillofac Surg 2002; 30: 160-169
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 15 Ellis 3rd E, Dean J. Rigid fixation of mandibular condyle fractures. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol 1993; 76: 6-15
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 16 Throckmorton GS, Ellis 3rd E, Hayasaki H. Masticatory motion after surgical or nonsurgical treatment for unilateral fractures of the mandibular condylar process. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2004; 62: 127-138
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 17 Meyer C, Serhir L, Boutemi P. Experimental evaluation of three osteosynthesis devices used for stabilizing condylar fractures of the mandible. J Craniomaxillofac Surg 2006; 34: 173-181
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 18 Eckelt U, Schneider M, Erasmus F. et al. Open versus closed treatment of fractures of the mandibular condylar process-a prospective randomized multi-centre study. J Craniomaxillofac Surg 2006; 34: 306-314
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar