ArticleMaxillofacial plastic and reconstructive surgery2022
Retrospective clinical study of mandible fractures.
Article in Maxillofacial plastic and reconstructive 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.
- Comparison between orthopedic and surgical treatment of mandibular condylar fractures. An epidemiological and treatment outcomes research of the Maxillofacial Center in Cluj-Napoca, Romania.Medicine and pharmacy reports · 2026Article
- Clinical and anatomical characteristics of mandibular angle fractures: a 10-year retrospective monocentric cohort study.Frontiers in oral health · 2026Article
- Risk factors of mandibular angle fractures based on digital reduction method: a retrospective analysis.BMC oral health · 2025Article
- Characteristics and Complication Rates of Mandibular Fractures Caused by Violent Mechanisms Versus Nonviolent Mechanisms.Eplasty · 2023Article
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
backgroundAs society becomes more complex, the incidence of mandibular fractures is increasing. This study aimed to analyze the incidence and type and identify etiological factors of mandibular fractures to use them in future treatments. MATERIAL AND
methodsData were collected from 224 patients who visited the department of oral and maxillofacial surgery at the Kyung Hee Medical Center dental hospital during a 6-year period (2016 to 2021). A logistic regression model was used for data analysis.
resultsIn a total of 224 patients, 362 fractures were appeared. The average age of the patients was 34.1 years, with the highest incidence in the 20s. And the ratio between male and female was 4.09:1. Symphysis fractures were the most prevalent of all patients (52.7%), followed by unilateral condyle (37.1%), angle (36.2%), bilateral condyle (9.4%), body (8%), and coronoid (2.2%). The most common cause of fracture was daily-life activity (57.6%), followed by violence (30.4%), traffic accidents (8.5%), and syncope (3.6%). Patients with symphysis fracture were at low risk (OR < 1) of angle, body, and unilateral condyle fractures. Similarly, patients with unilateral fracture were at low risk (OR < 1) of symphysis, angle, body, and others site fractures. In contrast, patient with bilateral condyle fracture were at high risk (OR > 1) of coronoid fractures. And younger patients were high risk of mandibular angle fractures.
conclusionThrough this study, it was confirmed that etiological factors of mandibular fractures were like those of previous studies.
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.