## 1 Introduction  
Condylar fractures represent one of the most frequent maxillofacial traumas in young people and adolescents. According to [PERSON] et al., approximately 45% of mandibular fractures involve the condyle, which is a critical anatomical structure as it serves as a primary growth center of the mandible [1].  
In fact, in growing patients, injuries in this area can lead to several long-term complications, such as mandibular dysfunction, growth disturbances, and malocclusion [2].  
The goal of treating mandibular condyle fractures is to restore joint functionality by achieving proper occlusion and restoring the integrity of bone and disc-ligament structures [3].  
Treatment approaches are traditionally classified into two main categories: surgical- and non-surgical (conservative) treatment [4, 5].  
Conservative treatment is particularly recommended for growing patients due to the high remodeling potential of the condyle [6, 7, 8, 9].  
In fact, according to [PERSON] et al., conservative treatment of condylar fractures is particularly indicated in growing patients (\(\leq\)16 years-old) when the condylar head and neck are either undisplaced, deviated, or displaced but not dislocated [10].  
The conservative treatment involves both maxillomandibular fixation and the use of functional appliances, such as the Balters Bionator, which promote distraction of the condylar fragment and the presence of intermittent stimulation delivered through masticatory forces [11].  
Additionally, conservative treatment helps to prevent scar formation, which can cause growth disturbances and facial asymmetry in growing patients [12, 13, 14, 15].  
The conservative treatment of condylar fractures has been widely endorsed by multiple studies, consistently producing positive functional outcomes in growing patients [11, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20].  
Different healing patterns of the condylar heads can result from condylar fractures [21, 22].  
In 2021, [PERSON] et al. introduced a 3D classification system for condylar fracture healing morphology in children and adolescents treated with maxillomandibular fixation (MMF) [9]. This classification system, which builds upon the nomenclature proposed by [PERSON] [23] and modified by [PERSON] [24], divides healing patterns into three main categories: unchanged pattern, spherical pattern and irregular pattern (further subdivided into three subtypes: triangle subtype, L-shaped subtype and Y-shaped) [9].  
This 3D classification represents a significant advancement in the radiological analysis of condylar fractures, allowing for more precise evaluation of potential clinical and functional correlations with specific healing patterns [2].  
However, a key limitation of this classification is its exclusive application to patients treated with MMF and splints; no study to date has applied this classification to patients treated with functional orthopedic appliances.  
Moreover, current classifications primarily focus on the description of _pre-treatment_ fracture morphology, without addressing the prognostic value of _post-treatment_ healing patterns. Additionally, these systems largely rely on qualitative assessments, while quantitative evaluations of fracture healing remain underexplored.  
The present study reported two growing patients undergoing conservative treatment with the Balters Bionator, with the aim of correlating radiological condylar remodeling with skeletal asymmetry, clinical and functional recovery, and condylar bone density. Indeed, the rationale of this study was to understand if [PERSON]'s classification of the condylar morphology through cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) scans could be correlated with temporomandibular joint (TMJ) recovery of growing patients.  
The present manuscript has been reported in agreement with the CARE guidelines [25] (Supplementary Table S1).