ABSTRACT
Background: The treatment approaches for condylar fractures of the mandible include functional, closed reduction and open reduction-internal fixation. Recently endoscopic management of condylar fractures has been emphasized in the literature. We systematically review the studies comparing closed versus open versus endoscopic-assisted condyle fracture management with regard to the indications, effectiveness and complications of each modality. Methods: A total of 11 articles were selected based on the inclusion and exclusion criteria from PubMed, Cochrane and clinical trials.gov. Differences in means and risk ratios were used as principal summary measures with p value < 0.05 as significant. For detection of any possible biases in sample sizes, the OR and its 95% CI for each study were plotted against the number of participants. Chi-square test, I2 test and the Cochrane bias tool were used to assess the bias in and across studies. Results: Except for deviation on opening there was no significant difference between open versus closed treatment of condylar fractures. Endoscopic approach and open surgical approaches differed only in terms of operating time and TMJ pain. There was no significant difference in facial nerve injury among the two groups. Discussion: Closed reduction is particularly indicated for minimally displaced fractures; for moderate to severe displacement, open reduction is preferred. Open reduction can also be preferred over endoscopic approaches as there is no significant advantage of using latter. Limitations of the study included specific treatment according to the site of fracture not addressed, limited data regarding pediatric condylar fracture, lack of homogenous classification schemes, etc.
ABSTRACT
Neurologic disorders impede oral hygiene measures and routine clinical follow-up, along with the various drugs used may jeopardise oral health and the peri- implant tissue health. A total of 7 studies were considered eligible for the current systematic review. The overall estimated effect was categorized as significant where P < 0.05. Funnel plot was used to assess the publication bias within the studies. Difference in means was used as principal summary measure. P value <0.05 was considered as statistically significant. 1069 implants survived in test group and 4677 implants survived in control group (odds ratio: 2.58, 95% CI: 1.93-3.43) indicating significant success in patient without any disorders or taking medications for these disorders. Subgroup analysis was done to check the implant survival rate in patients taking selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRI) compared with SSRI non-users. Subgroup analysis showed that SSRI non-users had higher implant survival rate than patients taking SSRI (odds ratio: 2.45, 95% CI: 1.82-3.31). Serotonin significantly inhibits bone mineralization and osteoblast differentiation. The presence of any form of neuropsychiatric or neuromuscular disorders precludes proper oral hygiene and may contribute towards implant failure.
