The aim of the study was to compare the outcome and complications of open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) with closed treatment, as well as to review the literature. This was a retrospective study on pediatric patients with mandible fracture. The primary objective was a comparison of outcomes in terms of bone healing, maximal incisal opening (MIO), and occlusion, and the secondary objective was to review complications. A total of 77 pediatric patients (age <12 years) were managed with closed treatment and 23 with ORIF. In all, 62 patients were found with a single fracture (22 patients with parasymphysis fracture and 21 with condyle fracture, followed by symphysis, angle, and body fracture) and 38 patients with more than one fracture, with symphysis and bilateral condyle fracture being the most common. Bone healing was observed in all the patients. Mean MIO was 26.9 ± 2.8 mm and 29.3 ± 1.7 mm in the closed and ORIF group, respectively, and the difference was statistically nonsignificant (p = 0.5). One patient (1.3%) had deranged occlusion, and mobility was observed in one patient (1.3%) in the closed treatment group. Infection and nerve paresthesia were not seen in any patient at follow-up. Although closed treatment is preferred, as it preserves the soft tissue and periosteum, a displaced mandible fracture especially with co-existing condylar fracture should be treated by ORIF.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jcms.2020.12.013DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

open reduction
8
reduction internal
8
internal fixation
8
closed treatment
8
retrospective study
8
pediatric patients
8
comparison outcome
4
outcome open
4
fixation versus
4
versus closed
4

Similar Publications

Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?

Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!