ArticleJournal of the Korean Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons2019
The effect of fixation plate use on bone healing during the reconstruction of mandibular defects.
Article in Journal of the Korean Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Use of customized 3-dimensional printed mandibular prostheses with a dental implant pressure-reducing device in mandibular body defect: A finite element study performing multiresponse surface methodology.Journal of dental sciences · 2024Article
- Total mandible and bilateral TMJ reconstruction combining a customized jaw implant with a free fibular flap: a case report and literature review.Maxillofacial plastic and reconstructive surgery · 2023Article
- The Use of Customized Three-Dimensionally Printed Mandible Prostheses with a Pressure-Reducing Device: A Finite Element Analysis in Different Chewing Positions, Biomechanical Testing, and In Vivo Animal Study Using Lanyu Pigs.BioMed research international · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThis study sought to compare efficiency results between the use of a customized implant (CI) and a reconstruction plate (RP) in mandibular defect reconstruction in an animal model. MATERIALS AND
methodsFifteen rabbits underwent surgery to create a defect in the right side of the mandible and were randomly divided into two groups. For reconstruction of the mandibular defect, the RP group (n=5) received five-hole mini-plates without bone grafting and the CI group (n=10) received fabricated CIs based on the cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) data taken preoperatively. The CI group was further divided into two subgroups depending on the time of CBCT performance preoperatively, as follows: a six-week CI (6WCI) group (n=5) and a one-week CI (1WCI) group (n=5). Daily food intake amount (DFIA) was measured to assess the recovery rate. Radiographic images were acquired to evaluate screw quantity. CBCT and histological examination were performed in the CI subgroup after sacrifice.
resultsThe 1WCI group showed the highest value in peak average recovery rate and the fastest average recovery rate. In terms of reaching a 50% recovery rate, the 1WCI group required the least number of days as compared with the other groups (2.6±1.3 days), while the RP group required the least number of days to reach an 80% recovery rate (7.8±2.2 days). The 1WCI group showed the highest percentage of intact screws (94.3%). New bone formation was observed in the CI group during histological examination.
conclusionRabbits with mandibular defects treated with CI showed higher and faster recovery rates and more favorable screw status as compared with those treated with a five-hole mini-plate without bone graft.
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.