Trial reportOral and maxillofacial surgery2017
Comparison of a 2.0-mm locking system with conventional 2.0- and 2.4-mm systems in the treatment of mandibular fractures: a randomized controlled trial.
Trial report in Oral and maxillofacial surgery, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 14 citations in OpenAlex.
- Effects of light-emitting diode (LED) therapy on sensory changes in the inferior alveolar nerve after surgical treatment of mandibular fractures: a randomized controlled trial.Oral and maxillofacial surgery · 2024Trial
- Stabilization of anterior mandibular fracture using different osteosynthesis devices: perioperative clinical notes.Oral and maxillofacial surgery · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeA comparative study of the use of the 2.0-mm locking fixation system with conventional systems in the treatment of mandibular fractures was performed.
methodsFor this study, 87 consecutive patients with 112 mandibular fractures were randomized to receive either 2.0-mm locking plates (n = 45) or conventional 2.0- or 2.4-mm plates (n = 42) and had a minimum follow-up of 6 months. Fractures were classified based on the degree of displacement and complexity. Statistical analyses were used to verify possible differences between the groups when separately compared unfavourable and favourable cases (p ≤ 0.050).
resultsDespite randomization, systemic diseases were more frequent in the 2.0-mm locking group in favourable cases. Substance abuse occurred predominantly in the 2.0-mm locking group, in unfavourable and favourable fractures. There were more cases of complex fractures in the conventional group in unfavourable cases. One case involving a major postoperative complication occurred in the locking group (2.2%) and three cases occurred in the conventional group (7.1%) but with no significant difference between groups. In this study, there were no major differences between conventional and locking 2.0-mm locking systems with regard to the outcome of treated mandibular fractures, showing that both are adequate as long as the criteria of their indication and requirements for installation are met.
conclusionsIt was concluded that the 2.0-mm locking fixation system can replace conventional systems in the treatment of mandibular fractures; in addition, this approach was effective in the treatment of unfavourable fractures that typically require the 2.4-mm conventional system.
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.