Article type
Year
Abstract
Objectives: to assess surgical treatment versus conservative treatment for mandibular condyle fractures.
Methods: we conducted a search in Epistemonikos, which is maintained through searches in multiple sources of information, including MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane, among others. We extracted the data from the identified reviews and analysed it from the primary studies. With this information, we generated a structured summary called FRISBEE (Friendly Summaries of Body of Evidence using Epistemonikos), following a pre-established format, which includes key messages, a summary of the evidence set (presented as a matrix of evidence in Epistemonikos), meta-analysis of the total of the studies when possible, a summary table of results with the GRADE method and a section of other considerations for decision-making.
Results: information on the effects of surgical compared to conservative treatment for mandibular condylar fractures is based on six randomized trials involving 288 patients. Four trials measured pain in temporomandibular joint, one reported infection, all trials
measured malocclusion, three trials measured lateral deviation in buccal opening, and two trials measured facial paralysis without presenting events.
Conclusions: surgical treatment probably leads to less joint pain than conservative treatment in mandibular condyle fractures. The certainty of the evidence is moderate. Surgical treatment probably leads to less malocclusion than conservative treatment in mandibular condyle fractures. The certainty of the evidence is moderate. It is not clear if there are differences in the risk infection between surgical and conservative treatment because the certainty of the evidence is very low.
Patient or healthcare consumer involvement: Considering the evidence presented in this summary, most patients and clinicians should prefer surgical intervention. However, there might be variability in the decisions made by patients, especially those who prefer to avoid complications of surgical treatment.
Methods: we conducted a search in Epistemonikos, which is maintained through searches in multiple sources of information, including MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane, among others. We extracted the data from the identified reviews and analysed it from the primary studies. With this information, we generated a structured summary called FRISBEE (Friendly Summaries of Body of Evidence using Epistemonikos), following a pre-established format, which includes key messages, a summary of the evidence set (presented as a matrix of evidence in Epistemonikos), meta-analysis of the total of the studies when possible, a summary table of results with the GRADE method and a section of other considerations for decision-making.
Results: information on the effects of surgical compared to conservative treatment for mandibular condylar fractures is based on six randomized trials involving 288 patients. Four trials measured pain in temporomandibular joint, one reported infection, all trials
measured malocclusion, three trials measured lateral deviation in buccal opening, and two trials measured facial paralysis without presenting events.
Conclusions: surgical treatment probably leads to less joint pain than conservative treatment in mandibular condyle fractures. The certainty of the evidence is moderate. Surgical treatment probably leads to less malocclusion than conservative treatment in mandibular condyle fractures. The certainty of the evidence is moderate. It is not clear if there are differences in the risk infection between surgical and conservative treatment because the certainty of the evidence is very low.
Patient or healthcare consumer involvement: Considering the evidence presented in this summary, most patients and clinicians should prefer surgical intervention. However, there might be variability in the decisions made by patients, especially those who prefer to avoid complications of surgical treatment.
PDF