Towards a consensus for classification of mandibular condyle fractures

The merits of surgical treatment of fractures of the mandibular condyle versus non-surgical management remains highly controversial, despite a large volume of literature dedicated to this topic. One reason the controversy remains, is because most of the outcomes in the literature are not directly comparable. The disparate range of condylar fracture classifications used is one of the reasons that studies are not comparable. We sought to review classification systems for condylar fractures used in the recent scientific literature. Review of the literature from 2016 to 2019, looking for papers relating to fractures of the mandibular condyle. Papers identified were assessed for type of study, focus of study, classification system used. 88 studies were identified, including prospective and retrospective cohort studies, randomised and non-randomised prospective studies, randomised controlled trials and case series. More studies focussed on epidemiological factors than surgical access, fixation or outcomes. 31 used no classification system, whilst 17 used unique classification systems and 40 used previously referenced classification systems. Classification systems are used to help separate clinical problems into distinguishable groups, where there is a difference in management or outcome depending on the distinguishing features. There is currently a wide diversity of classification systems used for condyle fractures, and as a result, comparisons of surgical access, fixation and outcomes are difficult to make. Having a single classification system across the published literature would allow easier comparison and the classification proposed by the AO group is recommended for future use.