Background： The treatment of the condylar fractures is difficult. Factors that result in the fractures are complex. The objective of this morphometric study was to investigate the relationship between condylar fractu...Background： The treatment of the condylar fractures is difficult. Factors that result in the fractures are complex. The objective of this morphometric study was to investigate the relationship between condylar fracture patterns and condylar morphological characteristics. Methods： We conducted a retrospective analysis of 107 patients admitted to the West China Hospital of Stomatology for bilateral condylar fractures caused by parasymphyseal impact. The patients were divided into five groups according to the type of condylar fracture. Ten parameters were evaluated on three-dimensional （3D） reconstruction mandible models through the Mimics 16.0 （Materialize Leuven, Belgium） anthropometry toolkit. Each parameter of the 3D models was analyzed using multivariate analysis. Multinomial logistic regression analyses were used to examine the relationships between the five groups. Results： The results showed that the differences of condylar head width （M 1 ）, condylar neck width （M3）, the ratio of condylar head width to condylar anteroposterior diameter （M1/M2）, the ratio of condylar head width to condylar neck width （M1/M3）, the ratio of condylar height to ramus height （M8/M7）, and mandibular angle （M10） were statistically significant （p 〈 0.05）. Type A condylar head fractures were positively associated with M1 （compared to Type B： OR ：1.627, 95% CI： 1.123, 2.359; compared to Type C： OR = 1.705, 95% CI： 1.170, 2.484） and M1/M2 （compared to Type B： OR = 1.034, 95% CI： 0.879, 2.484）. Type B condylar head fractures were negatively associated with M l 0 （compared to Type C： OR = 0.909, 95% CI： 0.821, 1.007）. Condylar neck fractures were negatively associated with M3 （compared to condylar head： OR = 0.382, CI： 0.203, 0.720 ; compared to condylar base： OR = 0.436, 95% CI： 0.218, 0.874）, and positively associated with M 1/M3 （compared to condylar head： OR = 1.229, 95% CI： 1.063, 1.420 compared to condylar base： OR = 1.223, 95% CI： 1.034, 1.447）. Condylar base fractures were positively associated with M10 （OR = 1.095, 95% CI： 1.008, 1.189） and negatively associated with M8/M7 （OR = 0.855, 95% CI： 0.763, 0.959） as compared with condylar head fractures. Conclusions： Condylar fracture pattern is associated with the anatomical features of the condyles when a fracture occurs from parasymphyseal impact.展开更多
文摘Background： The treatment of the condylar fractures is difficult. Factors that result in the fractures are complex. The objective of this morphometric study was to investigate the relationship between condylar fracture patterns and condylar morphological characteristics. Methods： We conducted a retrospective analysis of 107 patients admitted to the West China Hospital of Stomatology for bilateral condylar fractures caused by parasymphyseal impact. The patients were divided into five groups according to the type of condylar fracture. Ten parameters were evaluated on three-dimensional （3D） reconstruction mandible models through the Mimics 16.0 （Materialize Leuven, Belgium） anthropometry toolkit. Each parameter of the 3D models was analyzed using multivariate analysis. Multinomial logistic regression analyses were used to examine the relationships between the five groups. Results： The results showed that the differences of condylar head width （M 1 ）, condylar neck width （M3）, the ratio of condylar head width to condylar anteroposterior diameter （M1/M2）, the ratio of condylar head width to condylar neck width （M1/M3）, the ratio of condylar height to ramus height （M8/M7）, and mandibular angle （M10） were statistically significant （p 〈 0.05）. Type A condylar head fractures were positively associated with M1 （compared to Type B： OR ：1.627, 95% CI： 1.123, 2.359; compared to Type C： OR = 1.705, 95% CI： 1.170, 2.484） and M1/M2 （compared to Type B： OR = 1.034, 95% CI： 0.879, 2.484）. Type B condylar head fractures were negatively associated with M l 0 （compared to Type C： OR = 0.909, 95% CI： 0.821, 1.007）. Condylar neck fractures were negatively associated with M3 （compared to condylar head： OR = 0.382, CI： 0.203, 0.720 ; compared to condylar base： OR = 0.436, 95% CI： 0.218, 0.874）, and positively associated with M 1/M3 （compared to condylar head： OR = 1.229, 95% CI： 1.063, 1.420 compared to condylar base： OR = 1.223, 95% CI： 1.034, 1.447）. Condylar base fractures were positively associated with M10 （OR = 1.095, 95% CI： 1.008, 1.189） and negatively associated with M8/M7 （OR = 0.855, 95% CI： 0.763, 0.959） as compared with condylar head fractures. Conclusions： Condylar fracture pattern is associated with the anatomical features of the condyles when a fracture occurs from parasymphyseal impact.
