ArticleNational journal of maxillofacial surgery
Evaluation of efficacy 3Dimensional 4-hole trapezoid condyle plate for treatment of base of condyle fracture.
Article in National journal 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, 1 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
5 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Aim: The aim of our study was to evaluate the effectiveness of open reduction and internal fixation of the base of condyle using a 3D 4-hole trapezoid condyle plate (4-HTCP). Materials and Methods: A group of 25 subjects of an age range of 21-52 years (mean 32.7 ± 8.7 years) were treated of which, 7(28%) were female and 18 (72%), were male. All the patients were examined according to standard protocol. A retromandibular approach was used in all the patients. Results: The time taken for operating on the condyle alone was recorded it was between 30 minutes to one hour in 5 (20%) patients, between one-two hours in 19 (76%) patients and greater than two hours in 1 (4%) patient. Time taken from reduction of fracture to placement of the last screw was recorded. In 15 (60%) patients the time taken was less than ten minutes, in 10 (40%) patients the time taken ranged from 10-15 minutes. 6 (24%) patients needed additional exposure to facilitate the procedure. Postoperatively all the patients were followed up for a minimum of 9 months and a maximum of 30 months (mean 19.5 ± 5.87 months). The range of mandibular movements was satisfactory. The maximum incisal opening was in the range of 25-37 mm (mean- 31.4 ± 3.38 mm)on the first post-operative day. 31.4 ± 3.4 mm 6 weeks postoperatively, 43.8 ± 4.3 mm 3 months postoperatively, 46.7 ± 2.9 mm 6 months postoperatively and 49.7 ± 4.5 mm 9 months postoperatively. Taking into consideration the transient hypofunction of the facial nerve (8%) and TMJ disorder (8%) the aggregate complication rate in our study was 16%. Conclusion: Our study concludes that 4HTCP is a reliable and rigid choice of osteosynthesis for the base of condyle fractures.
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.