Three-Dimensional Morphometry of Mandibular Condylar Process Fractures and Its Influence on Treatment Choice

Musayev Shamshodbek Shukhratovich; Shomurodov Kakhramon Erkinovich

Authors

Musayev Shamshodbek Shukhratovich Department of Maxillofacial Surgery, Tashkent State Medical University, Tashkent, Uzbekistan, PhD, associate professor
Shomurodov Kakhramon Erkinovich Department of Maxillofacial Surgery, Tashkent State Medical University, Tashkent, Uzbekistan, DSc, Professor

Keywords:

mandibular condylar process fractures, three-dimensional morphometry, CT, CBCT, open reduction and internal fixation, treatment choice, virtual planning, osteosynthesis

Abstract

Three-dimensional morphometry of mandibular condylar process fractures has moved beyond being merely a more vivid form of visualization. Contemporary CT and CBCT studies show that quantitative assessment of spatial displacement, rotation, ramus height loss, proximal fragment volume, and final fragment position already influences the clinical choice between conservative management and open reduction, as well as the choice of surgical access and fixation strategy. Adult practice is gradually shifting from two-dimensional signs and broad fracture classifications toward morphology-driven decision-making, in which the spatial geometry of the fracture determines both the likelihood of functional adaptation and the technical feasibility of stable osteosynthesis. The 3D variables most consistently linked to treatment are proximal fragment displacement, rotation, ramus height loss, and lateral translation, whereas fixation planning depends especially on fragment size, screw corridor feasibility, and fracture-line position relative to optimal plate placement. Although the available evidence does not yet support one universal numerical algorithm, it already provides practical guidance for selecting adult patients for ORIF, for digital preoperative planning, and for individualized fixation. Three-dimensional morphometry should therefore be regarded not as an optional supplement to diagnosis, but as a working instrument in the modern management of mandibular condylar process fractures.

References

[1] E. Batbayar et al., “Quantitative three-dimensional computed tomography measurements provide a precise diagnosis of fractures of the mandibular condylar process,” Journal of Personalized Medicine, vol. 12, 2022, doi: 10.3390/jpm12081225.

[2] Z. Zhou et al., “Digital diagnosis and treatment of mandibular condylar fractures based on Extensible Neuro imaging Archive Toolkit (XNAT),” PLoS ONE, vol. 13, 2018, doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0192831.

[3] T. Kobayashi et al., “Identification of malocclusion risk factors after closed treatment of condylar fractures using a novel three-dimensional computed tomography approach,” Journal of Oral Science, 2021, doi: 10.2334/josnusd.20-0600.

[4] Y. W. Mo and D. L. Lee, “Prediction of conservative treatment failure for isolated unilateral mandibular condylar fractures using quantitative measures,” Annals of Plastic Surgery, vol. 85, pp. 384–391, 2020, doi: 10.1097/SAP.0000000000002316.

[5] S. Shakya, X. Zhang, and L. Liu, “Key points in surgical management of mandibular condylar fractures,” Chinese Journal of Traumatology, vol. 23, pp. 63–70, 2019, doi: 10.1016/j.cjtee.2019.08.006.

[6] S. A. Youssef et al., “Redefining and identifying evidence-based indications for open reduction and internal fixation in mandibular condylar fractures: A comprehensive systematic review and evidence analysis,” Craniomaxillofacial Trauma & Reconstruction, vol. 18, 2025, doi: 10.3390/cmtr18020025.

[7] S. Guo et al., “Computer-aided design-based preoperative planning of screw osteosynthesis for type B condylar head fractures: A preliminary study,” J. Craniomaxillofac. Surg., vol. 44, no. 2, pp. 167–176, 2016, doi: 10.1016/j.jcms.2015.11.013.

[8] J. Li, J. Jiao, T. Luo, and W. Wu, “Biomechanical evaluation of various internal fixation patterns for unilateral mandibular condylar base fractures: A three-dimensional finite element analysis,” J. Mech. Behav. Biomed. Mater., vol. 133, p. 105354, 2022, doi: 10.1016/j.jmbbm.2022.105354.

[9] P. Liokatis et al., “Application of the lambda plate on condylar fractures: Finite element evaluation of the fixation rigidity for different fracture patterns and plate placements,” Injury, 2022, doi: 10.1016/j.injury.2022.01.032.

[10] P. Liokatis et al., “A finite element analysis of the trapezoidal plate. How to get a stable fixation at different fracture lines?” Injury, vol. 55, no. 12, p. 112020, 2024, doi: 10.1016/j.injury.2024.112020.

[11] A. Alyahya et al., “Mandibular condylar fracture: a systematic review of systematic reviews and a proposed algorithm for management,” Br. J. Oral Maxillofac. Surg., 2020, doi: 10.1016/j.bjoms.2020.03.014.

[12] A. Schneider, J. Schulze, U. Eckelt, and M. Laniado, “Lag screw osteosynthesis of fractures of the mandibular condyle: potential benefit of preoperative planning using multiplanar CT reconstruction,” Oral Surg. Oral Med. Oral Pathol. Oral Radiol. Endod., vol. 99, no. 2, pp. 142–147, 2005, doi: 10.1016/j.tripleo.2004.05.021.

[13] J. Collier et al., “The role of pre-operative 3-dimension CT evaluation of Type B intracapsular condylar fractures,” 2008, doi: 10.1016/J.BJOMS.2008.07.018.

[14] B. Bielecki-Kowalski and M. Kozakiewicz, “Choice of screws for fixation of mandibular condyle fractures guided by anthropometric data,” Appl. Sci., 2021, doi: 10.3390/APP11083371.

[15] J. Kleinheinz, G. Anastassov, and U. Joos, “Indications for treatment of subcondylar mandibular fractures,” J. Cranio-Maxillofac. Trauma, vol. 5, no. 2, pp. 17–23, 1999.

[16] S. Kommers et al., “Is radiological shortening of the ramus a reliable guide to operative management of unilateral fractures of the mandibular condyle?” Br. J. Oral Maxillofac. Surg., vol. 52, no. 6, pp. 491–495, 2014, doi: 10.1016/j.bjoms.2014.04.008.

[17] T. Pavlychuk et al., “Application of CAD/CAM technology for surgical treatment of condylar head fractures: A preliminary study,” J. Oral Biol. Craniofac. Res., vol. 10, no. 4, pp. 608–614, 2020, doi: 10.1016/j.jobcr.2020.08.018.

[18] M. Kozakiewicz and I. Gabryelczak, “The osteosynthesis of the mandibular head, does the way the screws are positioned matter?” J. Clin. Med., vol. 11, 2022, doi: 10.3390/jcm11072031.

[19] J. Okulski et al., “Optimal plate choice for high-neck mandibular condyle fracture: A mechanistic analysis of 16 options,” J. Clin. Med., vol. 13, 2024, doi: 10.3390/jcm13030905.

[20] S. Devireddy et al., “Three-dimensional assessment of unilateral subcondylar fracture using computed tomography after open reduction,” Indian J. Plast. Surg., vol. 47, pp. 203–209, 2014, doi: 10.4103/0970-0358.138945.

[21] A. A. Mohamed et al., “Three-dimensional assessment of accuracy for open reduction and internal fixation of the subcondylar fracture,” J. Craniomaxillofac. Surg., 2021, doi: 10.1016/j.jcms.2021.06.009.

[22] M. B. Buitenhuis et al., “Anatomical position of the mandibular condyle after open versus closed treatment,” J. Craniomaxillofac. Surg., 2023, doi: 10.1016/j.jcms.2023.09.013.

[23] R. Ren et al., “Comparison of temporomandibular joint function and morphology after surgical and non-surgical treatment in adult condylar head fractures,” J. Craniomaxillofac. Surg., 2020, doi: 10.1016/j.jcms.2020.01.019.

[24] H. Park, S. Ahn, and B. Lee, “Quantitative assessment of condylar remodeling after open reduction and internal fixation in mandibular condylar head fractures,” J. Craniofac. Surg., vol. 35, pp. 2291–2295, 2024, doi: 10.1097/SCS.0000000000010414.