开放与封闭治疗髁突下下颌骨骨折:一份循证病例报告

K. Bangun, Irinawati Nangingtuari, A. Olivia, M. I. Maulana
{"title":"开放与封闭治疗髁突下下颌骨骨折:一份循证病例报告","authors":"K. Bangun, Irinawati Nangingtuari, A. Olivia, M. I. Maulana","doi":"10.14228/jpr.v5i1.247","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n \n \n \nBackground : Mandibular subcondyle fractures are accounted for 25%-35% of all mandible fractures. Closed treatment has been the preferred treatment for several years because it’s relatively easier and non invasive but the complications that may arise are varied. Open reduction was one of the options that is considered to reduce complications. This study examines whether open reduction was a better choice than closed reduction in the management of mandible subcondyle fracture with parameter outcomes are complications, facial nerve injury, pain, and mouth occlusion. \nMethod: A literature study was conducted from two databases: PubMed and Journal of Cranio-Maxillo-Facial Surgery (JOMS) with predefined keywords and references from 23-28 January 2018. The search was conducted with mandible subcondyle fracture, open reduction, and closed reduction. The search has been limited only for the last 5 years and limited to meta-analysis and systematic review. From the search, there were three articles used based on inclusion criteria in this case review. \nResult: The reviewed articles showed that open reduction provides better results than closed reduction, although open reduction results in complications of facial injuries and facial nerve weakness, but the complications were transient and tolerable.Conclusion: Based on existing clinical evidence, open reduction was the preferred management rather than closed. reduction due to better outcome and fewer complication. \n \n \n \n","PeriodicalId":364477,"journal":{"name":"Jurnal Plastik Rekonstruksi","volume":"58 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2018-12-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Open Versus Closed Treatment Of Subcondyle Mandible Fracture: An Evidence-Based Case Report\",\"authors\":\"K. Bangun, Irinawati Nangingtuari, A. Olivia, M. I. Maulana\",\"doi\":\"10.14228/jpr.v5i1.247\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"\\n \\n \\n \\nBackground : Mandibular subcondyle fractures are accounted for 25%-35% of all mandible fractures. Closed treatment has been the preferred treatment for several years because it’s relatively easier and non invasive but the complications that may arise are varied. Open reduction was one of the options that is considered to reduce complications. This study examines whether open reduction was a better choice than closed reduction in the management of mandible subcondyle fracture with parameter outcomes are complications, facial nerve injury, pain, and mouth occlusion. \\nMethod: A literature study was conducted from two databases: PubMed and Journal of Cranio-Maxillo-Facial Surgery (JOMS) with predefined keywords and references from 23-28 January 2018. The search was conducted with mandible subcondyle fracture, open reduction, and closed reduction. The search has been limited only for the last 5 years and limited to meta-analysis and systematic review. From the search, there were three articles used based on inclusion criteria in this case review. \\nResult: The reviewed articles showed that open reduction provides better results than closed reduction, although open reduction results in complications of facial injuries and facial nerve weakness, but the complications were transient and tolerable.Conclusion: Based on existing clinical evidence, open reduction was the preferred management rather than closed. reduction due to better outcome and fewer complication. \\n \\n \\n \\n\",\"PeriodicalId\":364477,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Jurnal Plastik Rekonstruksi\",\"volume\":\"58 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2018-12-18\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Jurnal Plastik Rekonstruksi\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.14228/jpr.v5i1.247\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Jurnal Plastik Rekonstruksi","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.14228/jpr.v5i1.247","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:下颌骨髁下骨折占所有下颌骨骨折的25%-35%。多年来,闭合性治疗一直是首选的治疗方法,因为它相对容易且无创,但可能出现的并发症各不相同。切开复位被认为是减少并发症的选择之一。本研究探讨了在并发症、面神经损伤、疼痛和口腔咬合等参数结果的情况下,切开复位是否比闭合复位更好。方法:从PubMed和Journal of cranio - maxilo - facial Surgery (JOMS)两个数据库中检索2018年1月23日至28日的相关关键词和参考文献,进行文献分析。对下颌骨髁下骨折、切开复位和闭合复位进行了研究。研究仅限于最近5年,并且仅限于荟萃分析和系统评价。从搜索中,根据本病例综述的纳入标准,使用了三篇文章。结果:文献综述表明,切开复位效果优于闭合复位,虽然切开复位会引起面部损伤和面神经无力等并发症,但并发症是短暂的,可耐受的。结论:根据现有的临床证据,切开复位优于闭合复位。减少由于更好的结果和更少的并发症。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Open Versus Closed Treatment Of Subcondyle Mandible Fracture: An Evidence-Based Case Report
Background : Mandibular subcondyle fractures are accounted for 25%-35% of all mandible fractures. Closed treatment has been the preferred treatment for several years because it’s relatively easier and non invasive but the complications that may arise are varied. Open reduction was one of the options that is considered to reduce complications. This study examines whether open reduction was a better choice than closed reduction in the management of mandible subcondyle fracture with parameter outcomes are complications, facial nerve injury, pain, and mouth occlusion. Method: A literature study was conducted from two databases: PubMed and Journal of Cranio-Maxillo-Facial Surgery (JOMS) with predefined keywords and references from 23-28 January 2018. The search was conducted with mandible subcondyle fracture, open reduction, and closed reduction. The search has been limited only for the last 5 years and limited to meta-analysis and systematic review. From the search, there were three articles used based on inclusion criteria in this case review. Result: The reviewed articles showed that open reduction provides better results than closed reduction, although open reduction results in complications of facial injuries and facial nerve weakness, but the complications were transient and tolerable.Conclusion: Based on existing clinical evidence, open reduction was the preferred management rather than closed. reduction due to better outcome and fewer complication.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信