ReviewOral and maxillofacial surgery2013
Open versus closed reduction: comminuted mandibular fractures.
Review in Oral and maxillofacial surgery, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
19 citing papers in PubMed, 62 citations in OpenAlex.
- Trial
- Staged reconstruction of panfacial trauma involving a comminuted mandibular fracture: a case report.Journal of the Korean Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons · 2026Article
- Restoring premorbid occlusal relationship with 3D-printed occlusal splints in treatment of extensive comminuted mandibular fractures: an exploratory technical report.BMC oral health · 2026Article
- Effectiveness of Single Miniplate Fixation for Mandibular Symphysis and Parasymphysis Fractures: A Clinical Study.Cureus · 2025Article
- The Global Burden of Maxillofacial Trauma in Critical Care: A Narrative Review of Epidemiology, Prevention, Economics, and Outcomes.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2025Review
- Use of External Fixator Device for Mandible Fracture Related to War Injury: A Systematic Review.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Review
- Comparison between open and closed reduction techniques for mandibular fractures: A systematic review.Bioinformation · 2025Article
- Does Alcohol Use Influence Hospitalization Outcomes in Adults Suffering Craniomaxillofacial Fractures From Street Fighting?Craniomaxillofacial trauma & reconstruction · 2024Article
- A Cone Bean Computer Tomography Investigation of the Newly Formed Mandibular Anterior Ridge following the Treatment of an Extended Comminuted Fracture: A 12-Year Follow-Up.Case reports in dentistry · 2024Article
- Treatment of extended comminuted mandibular fractures with infected cutaneous fistule Post-ORIF using a reconstruction plate: A case report.Annals of medicine and surgery (2012) · 2022Article
- Primary Repair of a Complex Panfacial Fracture by Dog Bite.Plastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open · 2018Article
- Managing a grossly comminuted and infected mandibular fracture using a maxillary extra-oral distractor as stabilizing agent: A clinical case report.Trauma case reports · 2017Article
- Treatment of Extensively Comminuted Mandibular Fracture with the Aid of a Condylar Positioning Device.Case reports in dentistry · 2017Article
- Mandibular fractures in iraq: an epidemiological study.Craniomaxillofacial trauma & reconstruction · 2015Article
- Fixation of mandibular angle fractures: clinical studies.Oral and maxillofacial surgery · 2014Review
- Treatment of extensive comminuted mandibular fracture between both mandibular angles with bilateral condylar fractures using a reconstruction plate: a case report.Journal of the Korean Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons · 2014Article
- Fixation of mandibular angle fractures: in vitro biomechanical assessments and computer-based studies.Oral and maxillofacial surgery · 2013Review
- Radiological investigation of acute mandibular injury.National journal of maxillofacial surgeryReview
- The need for craniofacial trauma and oncologic reconstruction in global surgery.Journal of oral biology and craniofacial researchArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThe purpose of the study was to review the literature regarding the evolution of current thoughts on management of comminuted mandibular fractures (CMFs).
methodsAn electronic search in PubMed was undertaken in May 2012. The titles and abstracts from these results were read to identify studies within the selection criteria. Eligibility criteria included studies published in English or German reporting clinical series of CMFs.
resultsThe search strategy initially identified 409 studies. Fifteen studies were identified without repetition within the selection criteria. One case report article showing significance in the development of treatment techniques was included. Additional hand-searching yielded five additional papers. Thus, a total of 21 studies were included.
conclusionsOpen reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) in cases of CMFs are indicated in (a) severe injuries with significant displacement to allow restoration of pretraumatic anatomic relationships, (b) in the edentulous and semi-dentate patient, who may benefit from ORIF of CMFs when stable occlusal relationships are absent, and (c) in cases with multiple fractures of the midface, in which the mandible has to serve as a guide to reposition the midfacial bones. However, there is still a place for closed reduction/conservative treatment (CTR). ORIF in CMFs is not indicated in cases of minimally displaced comminuted fractures that could easily and adequately be treated with CTR. If the surgical team is not well versed in the nuances of rigid internal fixation, or the necessary equipment is not available, it is far better to do simple CTR. However, it would be more reasonable to refer the patient to a hospital that can provide means of ORIF in cases of clear indication of its use in CMFs. In cases where ORIF is indicated, stabilization by compression or any other form of load-sharing osteosynthesis is obviously contraindicated because small fragments cannot be compressed and are not capable of sharing loads. Thus, the ORIF of CMFs is best performed using load-bearing osteosynthesis; most experience has been gained with 2.7-mm reconstruction plates. External pin fixation could be used in cases when there is so much comminution, soft tissue disruption (mostly gunshot wounds), and there are inadequate teeth on either side of the comminuted fracture to control the spatial relationship of the remaining mandibular fragments with maxillomandibular fixation (MMF).
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.