The Influence of the Mandibular Chin Angle on the Occurrence of Mandibular Condylar Fracture: A Retrospective Study.
Journal
TheScientificWorldJournal
ISSN: 1537-744X
Titre abrégé: ScientificWorldJournal
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101131163
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
2021
2021
Historique:
received:
30
06
2021
accepted:
24
11
2021
entrez:
30
12
2021
pubmed:
31
12
2021
medline:
8
3
2022
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Condylar fractures are commonly associated with symphysis/parasymphysis fractures. Condylar fractures have been attributed to direct and indirect traumatic forces, the direction and magnitude of the forces, and the condylar anatomy. The chief aim of this study was to determine the association between the newly defined mandibular chin angle and the occurrence of condylar fractures. A retrospective study was conducted to analyze two-dimensional computed tomography (2D CT) scans of patients with a history of chin trauma. The outcome was a symphysis/parasymphysis fracture with or without fracture of the mandibular condyle. The Mediff InstaRISPACS web-based platform was used to measure the chin angle. The cerebral aqueduct of Sylvius in the corresponding 2D CT midsagittal image was the standard reference plane to measure the chin angle. The SPSS Version 20 (IBM Corp, Armonk, NY) was used for data analysis. The sample size included 120 2D CT scans of patients with symphysis/parasymphysis fractures (60 associated with condylar fractures and 60 without condylar fractures). The mean chin angle in the group without condylar fracture was 133.35 ± 3.87°, which was approximately 15° lesser than in the condylar fracture group (mean, 148.56 ± 5.49°), and these findings were statistically significant ( Individuals with a high chin angle are potentially at a higher risk of sustaining associated condylar fractures.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Condylar fractures are commonly associated with symphysis/parasymphysis fractures. Condylar fractures have been attributed to direct and indirect traumatic forces, the direction and magnitude of the forces, and the condylar anatomy. The chief aim of this study was to determine the association between the newly defined mandibular chin angle and the occurrence of condylar fractures.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
METHODS
A retrospective study was conducted to analyze two-dimensional computed tomography (2D CT) scans of patients with a history of chin trauma. The outcome was a symphysis/parasymphysis fracture with or without fracture of the mandibular condyle. The Mediff InstaRISPACS web-based platform was used to measure the chin angle. The cerebral aqueduct of Sylvius in the corresponding 2D CT midsagittal image was the standard reference plane to measure the chin angle. The SPSS Version 20 (IBM Corp, Armonk, NY) was used for data analysis.
RESULTS
RESULTS
The sample size included 120 2D CT scans of patients with symphysis/parasymphysis fractures (60 associated with condylar fractures and 60 without condylar fractures). The mean chin angle in the group without condylar fracture was 133.35 ± 3.87°, which was approximately 15° lesser than in the condylar fracture group (mean, 148.56 ± 5.49°), and these findings were statistically significant (
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSIONS
Individuals with a high chin angle are potentially at a higher risk of sustaining associated condylar fractures.
Identifiants
pubmed: 34966249
doi: 10.1155/2021/2380840
pmc: PMC8712157
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
2380840Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2021 Sunil S. Nayak et al.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
The authors declare no conflicts of interest.
Références
J Comp Psychol. 1994 Sep;108(3):233-42
pubmed: 7924253
J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2010 Jun;68(6):1252-9
pubmed: 19939534
J Trauma Nurs. 2012 Jan-Mar;19(1):57-65
pubmed: 22415509
Injury. 2012 Nov;43(11):1850-5
pubmed: 22889532
Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol. 1962 Feb;15:136-47
pubmed: 14453786
J Craniofac Surg. 2012 Nov;23(6):1723-7
pubmed: 23147333
Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol. 1985 Feb;59(2):120-9
pubmed: 3856795
Insights Imaging. 2020 Feb 19;11(1):30
pubmed: 32076873
PLoS One. 2016 Feb 22;11(2):e0149553
pubmed: 26900699
J Craniomaxillofac Surg. 2014 Jul;42(5):482-8
pubmed: 23906675
J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2017 Jan;75(1):153-159
pubmed: 27643630
Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol. 2014 Mar;117(3):283-8
pubmed: 24405647
J Craniomaxillofac Surg. 2004 Oct;32(5):303-7
pubmed: 15458672
Chin Med J (Engl). 2017 20th Feb;130(4):420-427
pubmed: 28218215
Radiographics. 2018 Jan-Feb;38(1):218-235
pubmed: 29320328
J Oral Surg. 1969 Jul;27(7):451-60
pubmed: 5255667
J Craniomaxillofac Surg. 2018 Mar;46(3):398-412
pubmed: 29339001
South Med J. 1992 May;85(5):506-18
pubmed: 1585204
J Craniomaxillofac Surg. 2006 Oct;34(7):421-32
pubmed: 17055280
J Craniofac Surg. 2014 Jan;25(1):166-71
pubmed: 24406572
Dent Traumatol. 2019 Jun;35(3):188-193
pubmed: 30793485
Quant Imaging Med Surg. 2017 Aug;7(4):469-479
pubmed: 28932703
J Hum Evol. 2000 Mar;38(3):367-409
pubmed: 10683306
J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2016 May;74(5):1013-22
pubmed: 26844401
J Craniomaxillofac Surg. 2014 Jul;42(5):e186-94
pubmed: 24099654
Oral Maxillofac Surg Clin North Am. 2013 Nov;25(4):601-16
pubmed: 24021623