RESULTS OF CLINICAL EXAMINATION OF PATIENTS WITH FRACTURES OF THE CONDYLAR PROCESS OF THE MANDIBLE
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.35220/2078-8916-2024-51-1.17Keywords:
mandibular condylar process fracture, computed tomography, subjective and objective examination of patients, age, gender.Abstract
The aim of the study – to analyze the frequency of diagnosis and data of subjective and objective examination of patients with fractures of the mandibular condylar process, depending on age and gender. Research methods. During the study period (2022-2023), we examined 71 patients aged 20-60 years with fractures of the mandibular condylar process (54.93 % male and 45.07 % female) who were admitted to the inpatient department of the Chernivtsi Regional Clinical Hospital. The clinical examination included an interview and an objective examination of the patient. The anatomical classification proposed by A. Neff in 2014 and approved by the Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Osteosynthesis (AOCMF). All patients, after subjective and objective examination, underwent multislice computed tomography of the maxillofacial region with subsequent reconstruction in the Dolphin Imaging program. Scientific novelty. The highest incidence of mandibular condylar fractures was found in both sexes aged 31-50 years, which were mainly caused by road accidents and criminal acts. The most common objective symptoms in mandibular condylar fractures were soft tissue edema on the side of the injury, difficulty opening the mouth, and impaired tooth contact, which was detected in 100% of the subjects. The most common fractures in patients were unilateral fractures of the mandibular condylar base with displacement of fragments and unilateral fractures of the mandibular neck and condylar base, which were diagnosed in both sexes, on average, in 19.72 % and 16.90 % of cases, respectively. Conclusions. Thus, as a result of the studies, it was proved that the most susceptible to fractures of the mandibular condylar process are persons of both sexes aged 31-50 years, which were mainly caused by road accidents and criminal acts. In patients of both sexes, unilateral fracture of the base of the mandibular condylar process with displacement of fragments was most common: 20.51 % in men and 18.75 % in women.
References
Boffano P., Roccia F., Zavattero E., Dediol E., Uglešić Vedran et al. European Maxillofacial Trauma (EURMAT) project: a multicentre and prospective study. Journal of cranio-maxillo-facial surgery. 2015. Vol. 43, № 1. P. 62–70. URL: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcms.2014.10.011
Аветіков Д. С., Локес К. П., Ставицький С. О. Переломи нижньої щелепи: аналіз частоти виникнення, локалізації та ускладнень. Вісник проблем біології і медицини. 2014. Вип. 3(3). С. 62–64.
Principles of Internal Fixation of the Craniomaxillofacial Skeleton. Trauma and Orthognathic Surgery / eds.: P. N. Manson, J. Prein, M. Ehrenfeld. Stuttgart: Georg Thieme Verlag KG., 2012. doi:10.1055/b-0034-84677
Kozakiewicz M., Zieliński R., Konieczny B., Krasowski M., Okulski J. Open Rigid Internal Fixation of Low-Neck Condylar Fractures of the Mandible: Mechanical Comparison of 16 Plate Designs. Materials (Basel, Switzerland). 2020. Vol. 13, Iss. 8. P. 1953. doi: https://doi.org/10.3390/ma13081953
Munante-Cardenas J. L., Facchina Nunes P. H., Passeri L. A. Etiology, treatment, and complications of mandibular fractures. The Journal of craniofacial surgery. 2015. Vol. 26, № 3. P. 611–615 doi.org/10.1097/ SCS.0000000000001273
Копчак А. В. Порівняльна оцінка способів остеосинтезу виросткового відростку нижньої щелепи при його травматичних переломах. Acta Medica Leopoliensia. 2014. Т. 20, № 2. С. 9–17.
Kostakis G., Stathopoulos P., Dais P., Gkinis G., Igoumenakis D. et al. An epidemiologic analysis of 1,142 maxillofacial fractures and concomitant injuries. Oral surgery, oral medicine, oral pathology and oral radiology.2012. Vol. 114, 5 Suppl. P. S69–S73 doi. org/10.1016/j.tripleo.2011.08.029.
Juncar M., Tent P. A., Juncar R. I., Harangus A., Mircea R. An epidemiological analysis of maxillofacial fractures: a 10-year cross-sectional cohort retrospective study of 1007 patients. BMC oral health. 2021. Vol. 21, № 1. P. 128 doi.org/10.1186/s12903-021-01503-5. 9. Chatterjee A., Gunashekhar S., Karthic R., Karthika S., Edsor E., Nair R. U Comparison of Single Versus Two Non-Compression Miniplates in the Management of Unfavourable Angle Fracture of the Mandible Orginal Research. Journal of pharmacy & bioallied sciences. 2023. Vol. 15, (Suppl 1). P. S486–S489 doi: https://doi. org/10.4103/jpbs.jpbs_555_22.
Odom E. B., Snyder-Warwick A. K. Mandible Fracture Complications and Infection: The Influence of Demographics and Modifiable Factors. Plastic and reconstructive surgery. 2016. Vol. 138, № 2. P. 282e–289e
Хірургічна стоматологія та щелепно-лицева хірургія : у 2 т. Т. 1 : підручник для студентів вищих мед. навч. закл. ІІІ-ІV рівнів акредитації / В. О. Маланчук та ін. Київ: Логос, 2011. 672 с.
Cillo J. E. Jr, Ellis E. 3rd. Management of bilateral mandibular angle fractures with combined rigid and nonrigid fixation. Journal of oral and maxillofacial surgery. 2014. Vol. 72. P. 106–111 doi.org/10.1016/j. joms.2013.07.008.
Грузєва Т.С. Біостатистика. Вінниця : Нова книга, 2020. 384 с.
