Will Closed Treatment Provide Better Mandibular Motion Than Open Reduction and Internal Fixation in Cases of Unilateral Displaced Subcondylar Fracture? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

PURPOSE

The aim of the present systematic review was to determine whether closed treatment (CLT) with intermaxillary fixation (IMF) is superior or equivalent to open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) in the management of unilateral displaced subcondylar fractures regarding the range of mandibular motion.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

To address our question, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of the reported data after a comprehensive manual and electronic database search of studies reported up to 2017 in the English language that had compared CLT and ORIF of mandibular condyle fractures in adults. The following outcomes were recorded: maximum interincisal opening (MIO), protrusive movement (PM), lateral excursion toward the fractured side (LEFS), and lateral excursion toward the nonfractured side (LENFS).

RESULTS

The search resulted in 8 studies, 4 of which were included in the meta-analysis. The MIO and PM showed no statistically significant differences, with an effect size of -0.823 (P = .112) and -0.633 (P = .079), respectively. However, the LEFS and LENFS were superior after CLT, with an effect size of -0.710 (P = .031) and -0.682 (P = .017), respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

The findings from the present review suggest that both ORIF and CLT can provide comparable MIO and PM in subjects with unilateral displaced subcondylar fractures. However, CLT was superior to ORIF for both LEFS and LENFS.