Comparison between open and closed reduction techniques for mandibular fractures: A systematic review

TL;DR

This review compares two methods for treating jaw fractures and finds that each has specific benefits depending on the patient's condition.

Contribution

A systematic review comparing functional and aesthetic outcomes of open versus closed reduction for mandibular fractures.

Findings

Open reduction improves early functional recovery and aesthetics with less immobilization.

Closed reduction is associated with fewer severe surgical complications but longer treatment duration.

Both methods achieve successful healing when appropriately selected based on patient needs.

Abstract

The ideal management of mandibular fractures is still controversial and both closed reduction and open reduction procedures are
practiced extensively. The objective of this systematic review was to compare and assess the functional outcome, complication rate,
esthetic outcome and patient satisfaction in both forms of treatment. Exhaustive searching of various databases was done to select
studies that compared open with closed reduction directly for treating mandibular fractures. The evidence supports that open reduction
is superior in early functional recovery, reduced immobilization and improved aesthetics, while closed reduction has advantages of more
prolonged treatment but less severe surgical complications. Both are nonetheless effective in gaining successful fracture healing if
properly chosen according to the clinical condition of patients.