ArticleCraniomaxillofacial trauma & reconstruction2019
The Comprehensive AO CMF Classification System for Mandibular Fractures: A Multicenter Validation Study.
Article in Craniomaxillofacial trauma & reconstruction, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 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
13 citing papers in PubMed.
- Evaluation of the application of three dimensional-printed occlusal splint in conservative treatment of condylar fractures.BMC oral health · 2026Observational
- Comparing Mixed Reality and Two-Dimensional Imaging in Mandibular Fracture Classification: A Prospective Randomized Study in Medical and Dental Students.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- Integrated management of mandibular fractures and traumatic dental injuries: a literature review and clinical algorithm proposal.Frontiers in oral health · 2026Review
- Effectiveness of Open Rigid Internal Fixation of Condylar Fracture Resulting in Temporomandibular Joint Function Recovery.Dentistry journal · 2025Article
- Risk factors of mandibular angle fractures based on digital reduction method: a retrospective analysis.BMC oral health · 2025Article
- Article
- Detection and classification of mandibular fractures in panoramic radiography using artificial intelligence.Dento maxillo facial radiology · 2024Article
- Revision Surgery With Refixation After Mandibular Fractures.Craniomaxillofacial trauma & reconstruction · 2024Article
- Optimal Plate Choice for High-Neck Mandibular Condyle Fracture: A Mechanistic Analysis of 16 Options.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Article
- Correlation between Tomography Scan Findings and Clinical Presentation and Treatment Outcomes in Patients with Orbital Floor Fractures.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Which of the 37 Plates Is the Most Mechanically Appropriate for a Low-Neck Fracture of the Mandibular Condyle? A Strength Testing.Journal of clinical medicine · 2023Article
- AO Craniomaxillofacial Surgery (AO CMF): A World of Opportunities.Indian journal of plastic surgery : official publication of the Association of Plastic Surgeons of India · 2020Article
- Craniomaxillofacial Trauma in Dogs-Part II: Association Between Fracture Location, Morphology and Etiology.Frontiers in veterinary science · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The AO CMF has recently launched the first comprehensive classification system for craniomaxillofacial (CMF) fractures. The AO CMF classification system uses a hierarchical framework with three levels of growing complexity (levels 1, 2, and 3). Level 1 of the system identifies the presence of fractures in four anatomic areas (mandible, midface, skull base, and cranial vault). Level 2 variables describe the location of the fractures within those defined areas. Level 3 variables describe details of fracture morphology such as fragmentation, displacement, and dislocation. This multiplanar radiographic image-based AO CMF trauma classification system is constantly evolving and beginning to enter worldwide application. A validation of the system is mandatory prior to a reliable communication and data processing in clinical and research environments. This interobserver reliability and accuracy study is aiming to validate the three current modules of the AO CMF classification system for mandible trauma in adults. To assess the performance of the system at the different precision levels, it focuses on the fracture location within the mandibular regions and condylar process subregions as core components giving only secondary attention to morphologic variables. A total of 15 subjects individually assigned the location and features of mandibular fractures in 200 CT scans using the AO CMF classification system. The results of these ratings were then statistically evaluated for interobserver reliability by Fleiss' kappa and accuracy by percentage agreement with an experienced reference assessor. The scores were used to determine if the variables of levels 2 and 3 were appropriate tools for valid classification. Interobserver reliability and accuracy were compared by hierarchy of variables (level 2 vs. level 3), by anatomical region and subregion, and by assessor experience level using Kruskal-Wallis and Wilcoxon's rank-sum tests. The AO CMF classification system was determined to be reliable and accurate for classifying mandibular fractures for most levels 2 and 3 variables. Level 2 variables had significantly higher interobserver reliability than level 3 variables (median kappa: 0.69 vs. 0.59,
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.