Display options
Cite
Mohan AP, Jeevan Kumar KA, Venkatesh V, et al. Comparison of preauricular approach versus retromandibular approach in management of condylar fractures. J Maxillofac Oral Surg. 2012;11(4):435-41doi: 10.1007/s12663-012-0350-1.
Mohan, A. P., Jeevan Kumar, K. A., Venkatesh, V., Pavan Kumar, B., & Patil, K. (2012). Comparison of preauricular approach versus retromandibular approach in management of condylar fractures. Journal of maxillofacial and oral surgery, 11(4), 435-41. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12663-012-0350-1
Mohan, A P, et al. "Comparison of preauricular approach versus retromandibular approach in management of condylar fractures." Journal of maxillofacial and oral surgery vol. 11,4 (2012): 435-41. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12663-012-0350-1
Mohan AP, Jeevan Kumar KA, Venkatesh V, Pavan Kumar B, Patil K. Comparison of preauricular approach versus retromandibular approach in management of condylar fractures. J Maxillofac Oral Surg. 2012 Dec;11(4):435-41. doi: 10.1007/s12663-012-0350-1. Epub 2012 Apr 04. PMID: 24293937; PMCID: PMC3485461.
Copy Download .nbib Format: NLM
Share it on

J Maxillofac Oral Surg. 2012 Dec;11(4):435-41. doi: 10.1007/s12663-012-0350-1. Epub 2012 Apr 04.

Comparison of preauricular approach versus retromandibular approach in management of condylar fractures.

Journal of maxillofacial and oral surgery

A P Mohan, K A Jeevan Kumar, V Venkatesh, B Pavan Kumar, Kapil Patil

Affiliations

  1. Department of Oral & Maxillofacial Surgery, Kamineni Institute of Dental Sciences, Sreepuram, Narkatpally, Nalgonda District, Andhra Pradesh India.

PMID: 24293937 PMCID: PMC3485461 DOI: 10.1007/s12663-012-0350-1

Abstract

AIM: The aim of the study is to compare the two extra oral approaches to the TMJ viz preauricular and retromandibular approach in management of condylar fractures of mandible.

METHODS AND MATERIALS: Patients with fractured dislocation and displacement of mandible condyle in medial direction were managed by preauricular approach. Patients with lateral displacement of mandibular condyle were managed by retromandibular approach. OPG, Reverse towne's, and C.T. scan were taken in all the cases prior to surgery to assess the pattern of displacement.

RESULTS: In our study both approaches have given excellent access and visibility to the condylar fractures but with limitations in each technique. Minimal intraoperative and postoperative complications were encountered in both approaches. The duration of the procedure for preauricular approach was much longer when compared with retromandibular approach. Facial nerve weakness was common in patients treated with preauricular approach, which they improved over a period of time and had complete recovery. Postoperative scar was imperceptible in all cases and good cosmetic results were seen with both approaches. Mouth opening, mandibular movements and occlusion were more or less same in both the approaches while pain and clicking was common in preauricular approach.

CONCLUSION: Both approaches have good results in managing condylar fractures with retromandibular approach having ease of access and ease of fixation. So one can always give preference to retromandibular approach over preauricular approach in managing the condylar fracture except in some cases where preauricular approach is the only option like anteromedial dislocation or complete medial dislocation of condylar segment. Situations, where patients who reported very late for the surgery with resultant scarring of the tissue, in those cases preauricular approach is the only option.

Keywords: Preauricular approach; Retromandibular approach; TMJ approaches

References

  1. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod. 1996 Sep;82(3):248-52 - PubMed
  2. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol. 1993 Jul;76(1):6-15 - PubMed
  3. Shanghai Kou Qiang Yi Xue. 2004 Feb;13(1):20-2 - PubMed
  4. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2001 Oct;30(5):384-9 - PubMed
  5. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 1983 Feb;41(2):89-98 - PubMed
  6. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2005 Dec;34(8):871-6 - PubMed
  7. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 1988 Apr;46(4):257-63 - PubMed
  8. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2000 Jan;58(1):27-34; discussion 35 - PubMed
  9. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 1987 Mar;113(3):262-6 - PubMed
  10. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 1989 Feb;18(1):18-23 - PubMed

Publication Types