ArticleArchives of craniofacial surgery2022
Comparison of intermaxillary fixation techniques for mandibular fractures with focus on patient experience.
Article in Archives of craniofacial surgery, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- Advances in the Management of Mandibular Fractures: A Comprehensive Review of Surgical Techniques and Biomaterials.Cureus · 2026Review
- Matrix WaveCraniomaxillofacial trauma & reconstruction · 2025Review
- Diagnosis of split fractures of the mandible in adults.Archives of craniofacial surgery · 2023Article
- "Comparison among 3 maxillomandibular fixation techniques for management of mandibular fractures - A prospective randomized study".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
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIntermaxillary fixation (IMF) is a technique that allows for the reduction and stabilization of mandibular fractures. Several methods of IMF, such as self-tapping screws or arch bars, have been developed. This study aimed to validate the usefulness of IMF with a self-tapping screw compared to IMF with arch bars with focus on the patients' perspective.
methodsWe retrospectively reviewed the medical records of all patients who were treated for mandibular fractures at our hospital between August 2014 and February 2021. A total of 57 patients were enrolled in this study. Thirteen patients were excluded from the analysis: three patients were lost to follow-up, and 10 patients did not undergo IMF. Finally, 44 patients were analyzed, of which 31 belonged to the arch bar group, and 13 belonged to the screw group. Patient discomfort and pain during IMF application and removal were analyzed using a patient self-assessment questionnaire. The surgeon also assessed oral hygiene, IMF stability, and occlusion.
resultsWe applied IMF to 34 men (77%) and 10 women (23%). The mean age of the patients was 37.3 years. The most common fracture site was the angle (30%), followed by the parasymphysis (25%), the body (23%), the condyle (11%), and the ramus (11%). Patient discomfort and oral hygiene were statistically favorable in the screw group. The IMF application time was statistically shorter in the screw group (p< 0.001). IMF stability was not statistically different between the two groups. The pain score during IMF removal was lower in the screw group (p< 0.001).
conclusionCompared to arch bars, IMF screws provide more comfort during the IMF period, help maintain favorable oral hygiene, and have a shorter application time. From the patient's perspective, IMF screws are an excellent alternative to conventional arch bars when applicable.
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.