Conservative versus surgical management of mandibular condylar fractures: a comparative study
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.2340/aos.v85.46063Keywords:
Mandibular condyle fracture, open reduction internal fixation, closed reduction, intermaxillary fixation, treatment outcome, complicationsAbstract
Condylar process fractures are a common mandibular injury predominantly affecting males, with a male-to-female ratio of 3:1. This study examines outcomes in patients with mandibular condylar fractures treated either conservatively or surgically, comparing long-term subjective results. A total of 281 cases were reviewed (144 treated conservatively and 137 treated surgically), with symptoms and functional outcomes assessed through questionnaires.
Surgical intervention was more common in complex cases (e.g. bilateral fractures or concurrent maxillofacial injuries), and the surgical treatment group had a higher proportion of male patients and trauma related to violence. Mandibular joint sounds (e.g. clicking and crepitation) were more frequent in patients treated conservatively, whereas pain both at rest and during movement was more common in women and those with interpersonal violence-related trauma. Multivariable analysis indicated the presence of concurrent fractures as a risk factor for joint sounds, and gender and trauma type influenced pain and symptom frequency.
Despite these differences, both treatments achieved comparable success in maintaining stable occlusion and achieving painless jaw function. These findings suggest that both conservative and surgical treatments can be effective, although individual factors such as gender, trauma type and concurrent fractures may affect post-treatment symptomatology and choice of treatment.
Downloads
References
Motamedi MHK, Dadgar E, Ebrahimi A, Shirani G, Haghighat A, Jamalpour MR. Pattern of maxillofacial fractures: a 5-year analysis of 8,818 patients. J Trauma Acute Care Surg. 2014;77(4):630–4. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/TA.0000000000000369
Morris C, Bebeau NP, Brockhoff H, Tandon R, Tiwana P. Mandibular fractures: an analysis of the epidemiology and patterns of injury in 4,143 fractures. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2015;73(5):951.e1–12. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joms.2015.01.001
Wusiman P, Maimaitituerxun B, Guli, Saimaiti A, Moming A. Epidemiology and pattern of oral and maxillofacial trauma. J Craniofac Surg. 2020;31(5):e517–20. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/SCS.0000000000006719
Leow J, Exley R, Holmes S, Bhatti N. How good is good enough? Lessons learned from review of outcomes of 50 patients following extraoral open reduction and internal ixation of condylar neck and base fractures at a regional major trauma centre. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2024;62(1):83–8. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bjoms.2023.11.004
Bos RR, Ward Booth RP, de Bont LG. Mandibular condyle fractures: a consensus. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 1999;37(2):87–9. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0266-4356(98)90014-6
Kommers SC, van den Bergh B, Forouzanfar T. Quality of life after open versus closed treatment for mandibular condyle fractures: a review of literature. J Craniomaxillofac Surg. 2013;41(8):e221–5. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcms.2013.01.022
Minervini G, Franco R, Marrapodi MM, Di Blasio M, Isola G, Cicciù M. Conservative treatment of temporomandibular joint condylar fractures: a systematic review conducted according to PRISMA guidelines and the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. J Oral Rehabil. 2023;50(9):886–93. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/joor.13497
Santler G, Kiircher H, Ruda C, Kgle E. Fractures of the condylar surgical versus nonsurgical process: treatment. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 1999;57(4):392–7; discussion 397–8. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0278-2391(99)90276-8
García-Guerrero I, Ramírez JM, Gómez de Diego R, Martínez-González JM, Poblador MS, Lancho JL. Complications in the treatment of mandibular condylar fractures: surgical versus conservative treatment. Ann Anat. 2018;216:60–8. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aanat.2017.10.007
Schneider M, Erasmus F, Gerlach KL, Kuhlisch E, Loukota RA, Rasse M, et al. Open reduction and internal fixation versus closed treatment and mandibulomaxillary fixation of fractures of the mandibular condylar process: a randomized, prospective, multicenter study with special evaluation of fracture level. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2008;66(12):2537–44. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joms.2008.06.107
Al-Moraissi EA, Ellis E, 3rd. Surgical treatment of adult mandibular condylar fractures provides better outcomes than closed treatment: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2015;73(3):482–93. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joms.2014.09.027
Mooney S, Gulati RD, Yusupov S, Butts SC. Mandibular condylar fractures. Facial Plast Surg Clin North Am. 2022;30(1):85–98. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fsc.2021.08.007
Neff A. Open reduction and internal fixation in temporomandibular joint traumatology: current concepts and future perspectives. Stomatol Dis Sci. 2019;2019;27. DOI: https://doi.org/10.20517/2573-0002.2018.27
Chieng CY, Patel A, Nazir H, Ali S, Bhatti N, Mcleod N. Condyle head fracture management: a systematic review of outcomes. J Craniomaxillofac Surg. 2024;52(12):1476–84. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcms.2024.08.019
Bera RN, Anand Kumar J, Kanojia S, Mashhadi Akbar Boojar F, Chauhan N, Hirani MS. How far we have come with the management of condylar fractures? A meta-analysis of closed versus open versus endoscopic management. J Maxillofac Oral Surg. 2022;21(3):888–903. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12663-021-01587-0
Villarreal PM, Monje F, Junquera LM, Mateo J, Morillo AJ, González C. Mandibular condyle fractures: determinants of treatment and outcome. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2004;62(2):155–63. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joms.2003.08.010
Christensen BJ, Mercante DE, Neary JP, King BJ. Risk factors for severe complications of operative mandibular fractures. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2017;75(4):787.e1–8. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joms.2016.12.003
Sharif MO, Fedorowicz Z, Drews P, Nasser M, Dorri M, Newton T, et al. Interventions for the treatment of fractures of the mandibular condyle. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2010;(4):CD006538. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD006538.pub2
The Helsinki Declaration of the World Medical Association (WMA). Ethical principles of medical research involving human subjects. Pol Merkur Lekarski. 2014;36:298–301.
Sawazaki R, Júnior SML, Asprino L, Moreira RWF, de Moraes M. Incidence and patterns of mandibular condyle fractures. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2010;68(6):1252–9. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joms.2009.03.064
Weiss JP, Sawhney R. Update on mandibular condylar fracture management. Curr Opin Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2016;24(4):273–8. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/MOO.0000000000000272
Christensen J, Sawatari Y, Peleg M. High-energy traumatic maxillofacial injury. J Craniofac Surg. 2015;26(5):1487–91. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/SCS.0000000000001789
Tabrizi R, Bahramnejad E, Mohaghegh M, Alipour S. Is the frequency of temporomandibular dysfunction different in various mandibular fractures? J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2014;72(4):755–61. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joms.2013.10.018
Hadler-Olsen E, Thon E, Holde GE, Jönsson B, Oscarson N, Tillberg A. Temporomandibular disorders in an adult population in northern Norway: a cross-sectional study. Clin Exp Dent Res. 2021;7(6):1144–1153. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/cre2.463
Kushagra M, Anterpreet D. Temporomandibular syndrome [Internet]. Treasure Island, FL: StatPearls; 2023 [cited 2025 Oct 10] Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK551612/
Ellis E, Throckmorton GS. Treatment of mandibular condylar process fractures: biological considerations. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2005;63(1):115–34. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joms.2004.02.019
Choi KY, Yang JD, Chung HY, Cho BC. Current concepts in the mandibular condyle fracture management part I: overview of condylar fracture. Arch Plast Surg. 2012;39(4):291–300. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5999/aps.2012.39.4.291
Helmer LML, Klop C, Lobbezoo F, de Lange J, Koolstra JH, Dubois L. Load distribution after unilateral condylar fracture with shortening of the ramus: a finite element model study. Head Face Med. 2023;19(1):27. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s13005-023-00370-5
Hlawitschka M, Loukota R, Eckelt U. Functional and radiological results of open and closed treatment of intracapsular (diacapitular) condylar fractures of the mandible. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2005;34(6):597–604. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijom.2005.02.004
Afari N, Wen Y, Buchwald D, Goldberg J, Plesh O. Are post-traumatic stress disorder symptoms and temporomandibular pain associated? A twin study. J Orofac Pain. 2008;22(1):41–9.
Shobha ES, Nainoor N, Prashanth NT, Rangan V, Malick R, Shetty S. Comparative evaluation of open reduction with internal fixation against closed reduction methods for condylar fracture management: a systematic review and meta- analysis. J Maxillofac Oral Surg. 2024;23(3):475–87. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12663-024-02125-4
Darville-Beneby R, Lomanowska AM, Yu HC, Jobin P, Rosenbloom BN, Gabriel G, et al. The impact of preoperative patient education on postoperative pain, opioid use, and psychological outcomes: a narrative review. Can J Pain. 2023;7(2):2266751. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/24740527.2023.2266751
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Hampus Eksell, Anna Jinghede Sundwall, Robin Radamson, Annika Rosén, Robert Heymann
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Acta Odontologica Scandinavica publishes original research papers as well as critical reviews relevant to the diagnosis, epidemiology, health service, prevention, aetiology, pathogenesis, pathology, physiology, microbiology, development and treatment of diseases affecting tissues of the oral cavity and associated structures including papers on cause and effect or explanatory/associative relationships for experimental or observational studies.
