Controversies in the Management of Mandibular Condylar Fractures: A Narrative Review of Anatomy, Diagnosis, Classification, Treatment Modalities, and Complications
Management of Condylar Fractures
Abstract
Background: Fractures of the mandibular condyle account for approximately 25–40% of all mandibular fractures and remain one of the most debated entities in maxillofacial traumatology. Despite more than nine decades of accumulated clinical experience, no universally accepted protocol exists for choosing between closed (conservative) reduction and open reduction with internal fixation (ORIF). The objective is to synthesize and critically appraise the anatomical, diagnostic, classificatory, therapeutic, and complication-related evidence on mandibular condylar fractures, and to clarify the principal areas of ongoing controversy in their management. Subjects and Methods: A structured narrative review was undertaken of 45 primary and secondary sources published between 1927 and 2025, spanning foundational classification studies, comparative clinical trials, systematic reviews and meta-analyses, and contemporary innovations in fixation technology. Data were extracted on diagnostic accuracy, classification frameworks, treatment indications, surgical approaches, and quantitative complication rates, and evidence was graded using a standard three-tier level-of-evidence framework. Results: Nine major classification systems have been proposed since 1927, of which the Spiessl and Schroll and Lindahl systems remain the most clinically applied. Computed tomography demonstrated higher sensitivity than orthopantomography for fracture detection (100% vs 87.5% overall; 92% vs 70% in children). Pooled complication rates after ORIF were led by transient facial nerve weakness (8.3%, with 0.3% permanent), followed by hardware-related complications (1.79%), salivary leakage (1.62%) and salivary fistula (1.11%); closed reduction was associated with inadequate condylar remodeling in 3.05% of cases. Of the key comparative studies reviewed, findings were evenly split between those favouring ORIF and those favouring conservative management, reflecting genuine equipoise in the literature rather than a clear consensus. Conclusion: No single management strategy is universally superior. Treatment selection should be individualized according to patient age, fracture level and displacement, occlusal status, and surgeon expertise, with ORIF increasingly favoured for displaced or dislocated fractures in adults and conservative management remaining the standard for minimally displaced and pediatric fractures. Further multicentric randomized trials with standardized outcome measures are required to resolve the long-standing debate.
Downloads
References
2. Rowe NL, Killey HC. Fractures of the Facial Skeleton. Edinburgh: Churchill Livingstone; 1968.
3. Spiessl B, Schroll K. Fractures of the condylar process. Int J Oral Surg. 1972;1(1):12–21.
4. Lindahl L. Condylar fractures of the mandible: classification and relation to age, occlusion, and prognosis. Int J Oral Surg. 1977;6(1):12–21.
5. Zide MF, Kent JN. Indications for open reduction of mandibular condyle fractures. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 1990;41(2):89–98.
6. Silvennoinen U, Iizuka T, Oikarinen K, Lindqvist C. Outcome of closed treatment of mandibular condylar fractures. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 1994;52(9):873–879.
7. Manisali M, Amin M, Aghabeigi B, Newman L. Conservative management of condylar fractures with early mobilization. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 1996;34(2):103–106.
8. Ellis E, Throckmorton GS. Treatment of mandibular condylar process fractures: biological considerations. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2005;63(1):115–134.
9. Terheyden H, et al. Functional results after ORIF of condylar fractures. J Craniomaxillofac Surg. 2005;33(4):235–43.
10. Loukota RA, Eckelt U, De Bont L, Rasse M. Subclassification of fractures of the condylar process of the mandible. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2005;43(1):72–3.
11. Haug RH, Assael LA. Outcomes of open vs closed treatment of subcondylar fractures. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2001;59(4):370–375.
12. Eckelt U, et al. Rigid fixation of condylar base fractures with miniplates: multicenter study. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2006;64(1):65–72.
13. Schneider M, et al. Biomechanical analysis of rigid vs non-rigid fixation for subcondylar fractures. J Craniomaxillofac Surg. 2008;36(3):141–146.
14. Snyder-Warwick AK, et al. Facial nerve injury after ORIF of subcondylar fractures: systematic review. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2010;126(6):1911–1919.
15. Sforza C, et al. Mandibular condylar fracture: a review of classifications and biomechanical considerations. Clin Anat. 2011;24(3):258–268.
16. Landes CA, et al. Prospective randomized comparison of one vs two miniplates for subcondylar fractures. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2012;129(3):345e–357e.
17. Chrcanovic BR. Mandibular condylar fractures in children: a systematic review. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol. 2012;76(3):319–28.
18. Feifel H, et al. Endoscopic-assisted treatment of subcondylar fractures—results and learning curve. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2015;53(4):308–312.
19. Bhutia O, et al. Endoscope-assisted ORIF for subcondylar fractures: systematic review. J Craniomaxillofac Surg. 2016;44(6):725–733.
20. Ying B, et al. Classification of condylar head fractures based on disc displacement. J Craniofac Surg. 2017;28(3):1–7.
21. Valliappan V, et al. Comparative study of open vs closed management of mildly displaced condylar fractures. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2019;77(8):1625–1632.
22. Delay A, et al. Use of cannulated screws in condylar head fractures. J Stomatol Oral Surg. 2019;120(3):198–205.
23. Al-Moraissi EA, Ellis E. Open versus closed treatment of adult mandibular condylar fractures: a meta-analysis. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2020;78(6):994–1006.
24. Silvestrini-Biavati A, et al. Functional therapy in pediatric condylar fractures: radiologic outcomes. Children. 2020;7(12):301.
25. Kumar I, et al. Imaging of mandibular condyle injuries: CT, CBCT, MRI roles. Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2022;51(4):20210375.
26. Corre P, et al. Condylar base fractures: a systematic review of management. J Stomatol Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2023;124(1):101240.
27. Zhao Y, et al. Patient-reported outcomes after ORIF vs closed treatment of condylar fractures: systematic review. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2023;52(8):1015–1026.
28. Joshi S, et al. Facial nerve injury related with retromandibular transparotid approach. Eur J Oral Surg. 2024.
29. Khan TA. Comparison of preauricular with retromandibular approach. Int J Life Sci Pharma Res. 2024;13(4):709–713.
30. Helmer L, et al. Orofacial trauma and temporomandibular disorders. Clin Oral Investig. 2024.
31. Fawzy H, et al. Intraoral vs extraoral approaches for condylar fractures. Int J Health Res. 2024.
32. Vijayakumar G, et al. Approach comparison in condylar fracture management: systematic review. Cuest Fisioterapia. 2025.
33. Anchlia S, et al. ORIF in condylar head fractures. J Maxillofac Oral Surg. 2025.
34. Delay A, et al. Cannulated screw fixation in condylar head fractures. J Stomatol Oral Surg. 2025.
35. Neff A, et al. Management of diacapitular fractures with headless compression screws: long-term outcomes. J Stomatol Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2021;122(5):493–501.
36. Meyer C, Kahn JL, Boutemi P, Wilk A. Surgical approaches to the mandibular condyle: a comparative anatomic study. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod. 2006;102(6):708–713.
37. Harris RP, Helfand M, Woolf SH, Lohr KN, Mulrow CD, Teutsch SM, Atkins D. Current methods of the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force: a review of the process. Am J Prev Med. 2001;20(suppl 3):21–35.
38. Montazem A, Anastassov GE. Management of condylar fractures. Atlas Oral Maxillofac Surg Clin North Am. 2009;17(1):55–69.
39. Vesnaver A, Ahčan U. Evaluation of surgical approaches to the mandibular condyle. J Craniomaxillofac Surg. 2005;33:310–317.
40. Javaid M, Haleem A, Singh RP, Suman R. 3D printing applications for the management of complex mandibular fractures: an overview. J Clin Med. 2022;11(9):2385.
41. Dawood A, Marti Marti B, Sauret-Jackson V, Darwood A. 3D printing in dentistry. Br Dent J. 2015;219(11):521–9.
42. Schepers RH, Raghoebar GM, Vissink A, Stenekes MW, Kraeima J, Witjes MJ. Accuracy of secondary mandibular reconstruction with prefabricated and manually bent reconstruction plates: a clinical trial. BMC Oral Health. 2025;25:59.
43. Rehman A, Gupta S, Alam S, Bansal A, Sharma RK. Fixation in maxillofacial surgery—past, present, and future: a narrative review. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2023;82(1):68–76.
44. Neumann MV, Südkamp NP, Strohm PC. Magnesium-based implants for fracture treatment: a review of the literature. Acta Biomater. 2019;98:1–14.
45. Widmann G, Bale R. Accuracy in computer-aided oral and maxillofacial surgery: a review. Head Face Med. 2006;2:29.
