ArticleTurkish journal of medical sciences2024
Open surgical approach to fractures of the mandibular condyle: surgical technique and associated complications.
Article in Turkish journal of medical sciences, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Comparison between orthopedic and surgical treatment of mandibular condylar fractures. An epidemiological and treatment outcomes research of the Maxillofacial Center in Cluj-Napoca, Romania.Medicine and pharmacy reports · 2026Article
- Advances in the Management of Mandibular Fractures: A Comprehensive Review of Surgical Techniques and Biomaterials.Cureus · 2026Review
- Effectiveness of Open Rigid Internal Fixation of Condylar Fracture Resulting in Temporomandibular Joint Function Recovery.Dentistry journal · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background/aim: This study evaluates anatomical reduction and rigid internal fixation of mandibular condyle fractures using the preauricular retroparotid approach. It also discusses advantages, deficiencies, and associated complications of the technique. Materials and methods: This retrospective study reviewed the medical records of a total of 52 mandibular condyle fractures from 42 patients who were treated with open surgery using the preauricular retroparotid approach between January 2019 and January 2024. Preoperative and postoperative assessments included measurements of mouth opening (maximum interincisal distance), vertical mandibular movement, and facial paralysis. Moreover, the Vancouver Scar Scale (VSS) was used to evaluate scar quality at the surgical site. Descriptive statistics were used to summarize patient demographics, preoperative findings, and postoperative outcomes. Results: Anterior open bite was the most common finding, detected in 83% of the patients before surgery. The mean mouth opening of the patients increased significantly from 29 ± 4.94 mm to 37.76 ± 2.12 mm. Vertical mandibular movement exceeding 4 cm was a finding in more than half (52.3%) of the patients. The mean VSS score, indicating scar quality, was 1.64 ± 0.70, suggesting overall good cosmetic outcomes. Plate breakage in two patients was noted as a complication during follow-up. Conclusion: Several surgical techniques have been described for mandibular condyle fractures, each with its own benefits and limitations.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.