Does Dynamic Intermaxillary Fixation With Elastics Improve Outcomes Following Unilateral Condylar Fracture?

Purpose The use of rigid versus semi-rigid intermaxillary fixation (IMF) following subcondylar fractures is controversial. This study aims to investigate whether the “dynamic” elastic fixation technique improves the outcomes, compared to the rigid fixation technique for the treatment of displaced subcondylar fractures in adults. Materials and Methods This nonblinded randomized clinical trial was performed on adult patients with unilateral displaced mandibular subcondylar fractures. Patients were randomly allocated into two groups (n = 17). The primary predictor variable was wire versus elastic IMF. Changes in primary (mouth opening) and secondary (other clinical and radiological) outcomes were recorded. Data were analyzed with the t test and Mann-Whitney test with SPSS software version 20. P-value Results In this study 34 patients (with mean age of 33.03 ± 1.79, 23.5% females & 76.5% males) in two groups (Elastics & Wire) followed up to 6 months. The Elastics group showed significant improvement in mouth opening (primary outcome) after 1 month of follow-up, but the differences were not significant at the end of the study. In terms of secondary outcomes, the ramus height shortening compared to the opposite side revealed favorable improvement in the Elastics group in the period of study. The differences between the two groups in the lateral movement and protrusive movement were significant in favor of the Elastics group. The differences in pain, fracture displacement, and midline deviation between study groups were not significant at the end of the study. Just 1 case with malocclusion was observed in the Wire group. Patients were more satisfied with dynamic nonrigid IMF with elastics. Conclusions The results of this study showed that using the dynamic IMF technique is more tolerable, and patients have better functional and clinical outcomes during and at the end treatment.