Healthcare costs of different treatment options for condylar fractures.

Objective: As treatment options for condylar fractures have comparable outcomes, getting insight into associated costs is a first step towards implementing value-based healthcare (VBH). Therefore, we described the actual costs of the different treatment options (surgical, conservative, and expectative treatment) for condylar fractures. We expected surgical treatment to be the most expensive treatment. Study design: This is a cost-of-illness study, based on estimates from the literature. Firstly, care pathways of all treatment options were described. Secondly, the costs per step were calculated based on the literature and Dutch guidelines for economic evaluations in health care. Results: The direct treatment costs of surgical treatment (€3721 to €4040) are three to five times higher than conservative treatment (€730 to €1332). When lost productivity costs during the recovery period are included, costs of surgical treatment remain 1.5 times higher (€9511 to €9830 for surgical treatment and €6224 to €6826 for conservative treatment). The costs of expectative treatment (€5436) are lower than both other treatments. Conclusion: The costs for surgical treatment are considerably higher than those for conservative or expectative treatment, mainly related to direct treatment cost. Future research should focus on the patients' perspective, to support implementation of VBH in treating condylar fractures.

Contact stress distribution after unilateral condylar fracture with angulation of the fractured part: A finite element model study.

After a fracture of the condyle, the head of the condyle is often pulled inwards, which causes the fractured part to angulate medially. This change can cause a disbalance in the masticatory system. The disbalance could lead to contact stress differences within the temporomandibular joints (TMJs) which might induce remodelling within the TMJ to restore the balance. The contact stress in the fractured condyle during open and closing movements is expected to decrease, while the contact stress in the non-fractured condyle will increase. In a clinical situation this is hard to investigate. Therefore, a finite element model (FEM) was used. In the FEM a fractured right condyle with an angulation was induced, which was placed at different degrees, varying from 5° to 50° in steps of 5°. This study shows only minor differences in amount of contact stress between the fractured and the non-fractured condyle. The amount of contact stress in the condyles does not increase with a higher degree of angulation. However, with larger angulations, the contact stress within the fractured condyle is more centralized. Clinically, this more centralized area could be associated with complaints, such as pain. In conclusion, due to the more centralized contact stress in the fractured condyle, one would expect some minor remodelling on the fractured side with more angulation.

Changes in load distribution after unilateral condylar fracture: A finite element model study.

OBJECTIVE: Premature dental contact on the fractured side and a contralateral open bite are signs of a unilaterally fractured condyle of the temporomandibular joint (TMJ). The lateral pterygoid muscle pulls the condyle inwards, causing angulation of the fractured part and shortening of the ramus. This imbalance after fracture might change the load in both TMJs and consequently induce remodeling. The present study aimed to calculate this change in load. It is hypothesized to decrease on the fractured side and increase on the non-fractured side. DESIGN: For these calculations, a finite element model (FEM) was used. In the FEM, shortening of the ramus varied from 2 mm to 16 mm; angulation, from 6.25° to 50°. RESULTS: After fracture, load on the non-fractured side increased, but only at maximal mouth opening (MMO). Simultaneously, load on the fractured side decreased, at both timepoints, i.e., MMO and closed mouth. When comparing all simulations at those time points, i.e., from 2 mm and 6.25° to 16 mm and 50°, the load in the fractured condyle declines steadily. However, for both timepoints, a threshold stands out around 6 mm shortening and 18.75° angulation: visualization of the fractured condyle showed, apart from load on the condylar head, a second point of load more medial in the TMJ which was most evident in the 6 mm - 18.75° simulation. CONCLUSIONS: These findings could implicate that the balance between both TMJs is more difficult to restore after a fracture with more than 6 mm shortening and more than 18.75° angulation.

Load distribution after unilateral condylar fracture with shortening of the ramus: a finite element model study.

OBJECTIVES: After a fracture of the condyle, the fractured ramus is often shortened, which causes premature dental contact on the fractured side and a contralateral open bite. The imbalance could change the load in the temporomandibular joints (TMJs). This change could lead to remodelling of the TMJs to compensate for the imbalance in the masticatory system. The load in the non-fractured condyle is expected to increase, and the load in the fractured condyle to decrease. MATERIALS AND METHODS: These changes cannot be measured in a clinical situation. Therefore a finite element model (FEM) of the masticatory system was used. In the FEM a fractured right condyle with shortening of the ramus was induced, which varied from 2 to 16 mm. RESULTS: Results show that, with a larger shortening of the ramus, the load in the fractured condyle decreases and the load in the non-fractured condyle increases. In the fractured condyle during closed mouth a major descent in load, hence a cut-off point, was visible between a shortening of 6 mm and 8 mm. CONCLUSIONS: In conclusion, the change of load could be associated with remodelling on both condyles due to shortening of the ramus. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: The cut-off point implies that shortening over 6 mm could present more difficulty for the body to compensate.

Crying out in pain-A systematic review into the validity of vocalization as an indicator for pain.

BACKGROUND: Vocalization is often used to assess pain, sometimes combined with other behaviours such as facial expressions. Contrary to facial expressions, however, for vocalization, there is little evidence available on the association with pain. The aim of this systematic review was to critically analyse the association between vocalization and pain, to explore if vocalizations can be used as a "stand-alone" indicator for pain. METHODS: The search was performed according to the Prisma Guidelines for systematic reviews and meta-analysis. The following terms were used: "Pain Measurement," "Vocalization" and "Verbalization." The study population included verbal and non-verbal individuals, including older people and children. The search was performed in three different databases: PubMed, Embase and CINAHL. A total of 35 studies were selected for detailed investigation. Quality assessments were made using two grading systems: Grading of Recommendations Assessment Development and Evaluation system and the Newcastle-Ottawa scale. RESULTS: An association between vocalization and pain was found in most studies, particularly when different types of vocalizations were included in the investigation. Different types of vocalization, but also different types of pain, shape this association. The association is observed within all groups of individuals, although age, amongst others, may have an influence on preferred type of vocalization. CONCLUSIONS: There is an association between vocalization and pain. However, vocalization as a "stand-alone" indicator for pain indicates only a limited aspect of this multifactorial phenomenon. Using vocalization as an indicator for pain may be more reliable if other pain indicators are also taken into account. SIGNIFICANCE: Vocalizations are frequently used in pain scales, although not yet thoroughly investigated as a "single indicator" for pain, like, e.g. facial expression. This review confirms the role of vocalizations in pain scales, and stresses that vocalizations might be more reliable if used in combination with other pain indicators.