Evidence map›Paper›PMID 22842858›Full record

ReviewOral and maxillofacial surgery2013

Open versus closed reduction: comminuted mandibular fractures.

Bruno Ramos Chrcanovic

Abstract readComparative StudyReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
19citing papers in PubMed
1.8field-weighted citation impact, top 16% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

19 citing papers in PubMed, 62 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Staged reconstruction of panfacial trauma involving a comminuted mandibular fracture: a case report.Journal of the Korean Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons · 2026
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Primary Repair of a Complex Panfacial Fracture by Dog Bite.Plastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open · 2018
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Mandibular fractures in iraq: an epidemiological study.Craniomaxillofacial trauma & reconstruction · 2015
    Article
  15. Fixation of mandibular angle fractures: clinical studies.Oral and maxillofacial surgery · 2014
    Review
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Radiological investigation of acute mandibular injury.National journal of maxillofacial surgery
    Review
  19. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.

Bruno Ramos ChrcanovicDepartment of Community and Preventive Dentistry, School of Dentistry, Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais, Belo Horizonte, MG, Brazil. brunochrcanovic@hotmail.com
Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais · BR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

Bone PlatesBone TransplantationBone WiresFacial BonesFracture FixationFracture Fixation, InternalFractures, ComminutedHumansMandibular FracturesPostoperative ComplicationsSkull FracturesSurgical Wound Infection

Identifiers

PMID22842858
OpenAlexW1992104863

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.