Premium
Clinical comparison between arthrocentesis and conventional conservative treatment with maxillomandibular fixation for unilateral high condylar fractures
Author(s) -
Nogami S.,
Yamauchi K.,
Kataoka Y.,
Takano H.,
Yamashita Y.,
Takahashi T.
Publication year - 2014
Publication title -
journal of oral rehabilitation
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.991
H-Index - 93
eISSN - 1365-2842
pISSN - 0305-182X
DOI - 10.1111/joor.12124
Subject(s) - medicine , condyle , arthrocentesis , malocclusion , range of motion , temporomandibular joint , dentistry , orthodontics , surgery , osteoarthritis , alternative medicine , pathology , synovial fluid
Summary This study aimed to compare the effects of arthrocentesis and conventional closed reduction for unilateral mandibular condyle fractures. A total of 30 patients with unilateral condylar fractures were evaluated. Patients with a high condylar fracture and magnetic resonance evidence of joint effusion ( JE ) were divided into two groups: those treated with intra‐articular irrigation and betamethasone injection (group I) and those given conservative treatment and rigid maxillomandibular fixation ( MMF ) (group II ). All patients were assessed for mandibular range of motion ( ROM ), protrusive movements, lateral excursion movements on the fractured and non‐fractured sides, pain in the temporomandibular joint and malocclusion, both before and after treatment. There were no significant differences in regard to protrusion, lateral excursion movement and incidence of malocclusion at 12 months after treatment between the groups ( P > 0·05). In group I, ROM and joint pain showed good improvement from the early stages of treatment, and those patients had better outcomes as compared to group II for those parameters at 1 and 3 months after injury. The present findings indicate that arthrocentesis may be more effective and provide faster healing than conventional closed reduction.