Background and objectives: Literature reveals many approaches for the ORIF of mandibular condyle and the difference in opinion regarding open and closed reduction of condylar fracture. The objective of study is: (1) comparison of rhytidectomy approach v/s retromandibular approach. (2) Comparison of ORIF and closed reduction with MMF (maxillo-madibular fixation).

Methods: A total of seventy patients with condylar fracture were randomly allocated to closed reduction with MMF ( n -30) and ORIF ( n -40). Out of forty patients with ORIF twenty were randomly allocated to rhytidectomy approach and twenty to retromandibular approach. For the comparison of approach the following parameter were noted: (1) duration of surgery. (2) Surgical access. (3) Anatomical reduction. (4) Facial nerve weakness. (5) Sialoceoal. (6) Post operative scar. For comparison of ORIF with rhytidectomy and retromandibular approach following parameter were measured after five months – (a) mouth opening; (b) protrusion; (c) laterotrusion; (d) shortening of ramus of mandible.

Subjective parameters: Pain and discomfort.

Conclusion: Rhytidectomy approach is better aesthetically and condylar fractures are better treated with ORIF especially in bilateral fractures and when there is shortening of ramus.

Key words: rhytidectomy; retromandibular; MMF; ORIF