ArticleAnnals of maxillofacial surgery
Rigid versus Resorbable Plate Fixation in Fronto-Orbital Advancement in Unicoronal Stenosis - A Retrospective Study.
Article in Annals of maxillofacial surgery. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 0 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Rigid plating fixation (RPF) and resorbable plating systems (RPS) advanced the field of reconstruction in craniomaxillofacial region. However, their performance in patients, particularly the effect on bone remodeling at site of hardware placement is not much documented. This manuscript aims to compare the performance of RPF and RPS in a cohort using a retrospective audit of case records. Methods: Archival records were searched for patients who had undergone cranial metal-RPF or RPS or combination for the correction of craniofacial deformities following inclusion-exclusion criteria. From records, data of the quality and quantity of bone formed along the site of plate fixation as compared with the adjacent site, accommodating or facilitating brain growth, and persistence of bone deformity at the site of hardware placement were collected at the end of the follow-up period. A total of 128 sites from 18 individuals (6 with exclusive metal-RPF and 12 with RPS) mean age of 7.45 ± 7.28 (Median 4; IQR of 8.88;2.6-11.5) who underwent cranial bone remodeling surgery formed the study group. Results: There was a statistically significant difference between the RPF and PRS system at the fronto-orbital suture ( Discussion: The RPF system was rigid but had a set of issues, while RPS has advantages and limitations. The qualitative difference in between the two systems is different. Due to inherent dissimilarity, the two systems cannot be interchanged and due diligence has to be exercised while deciding on the system. More prospective studies are needed to validate the findings.
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.