Several weeks ago, I saved a copy of a review on the treatment of condylar fractures to my hard drive. More specifically, the paper attempts to address the question of whether open treatment (surgery involving an incision) or closed treatment (such as the treatment used in my case) of these injuries is better. I wasn’t looking for an answer to this specific question in the article; my oral surgeon mentioned open treatment only as something that would be used if the closed treatment failed.
It was only today that I actually got around to reading the review. I was glad that I wasn’t reading it to find out whether open or closed treatments are better because the findings were inconclusive. Nonetheless, I did learn some interesting things from it. I was particularly interested in one of the findings of a study of Ellis and Throckmorton:
The patients whose condylar process fractures were treated by closed methods had significantly shorter posterior facial and ramus heights on the side of the injury, and more tilting of the occlusal and bigonial planes toward the fractured side, than patients whose fractures were treated by open methods.
I’m unfamiliar with many of the words in there, but to the extent that I understand the sentence, I think that it might confirm what I have suspected: that the asymmetretry in my mouth’s opening may be related to the way in which my bones have healed, and not just a result of stiffness in the muscles. In particular, the ramus is a part of the mandible, and apparently it is sometimes shorter after a condylar fracture has occured. This isn’t actually something that is of particular concern to me, but I do wish that my oral surgeon had acknowledged it to me.
Other studies found that patients with closed treatment experienced chronic pain and malocclusion (misalignment of the teeth), neither of which I’ve experienced since treatment.