ReviewCraniomaxillofacial trauma & reconstruction2024
The Reconstruction of Mandible Defects in War Injuries: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Review in Craniomaxillofacial trauma & reconstruction, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Free fibula flap for secondary mandibular reconstruction after gunshot injuries in Tigray, northern Ethiopia : A 5-year review of microsurgical challenges and outcomes in a war zone.Wiener klinische Wochenschrift · 2026Article
- Extremity and Mandibular Reconstruction After Gunshot Trauma-Orthoplastic Strategies from Five Years of Humanitarian Missions in a Resource-Limited Setting.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Study Design: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Objective: There has been an increasing trend in maxillofacial injuries associated with combat trauma. Within the maxillofacial complex, the mandible is the most likely structure to be damaged during combat. The structural deficits as a result can be reconstructed with many options. These include vascularised bone grafts (VBGs), non-vascularised bone grafts (NVBGs), alloplastic implants, reconstruction bars and distraction osteogenesis. This study aimed to determine the common modality and efficacy of mandibular reconstruction in combat trauma-related defects. Methods: A literature search was conducted on Pubmed, Prospero, Dynamed, DARE, EMBASE, COCHRANE and BMJ databases. Results: A total of six articles met the inclusion criteria identifying 165 patients requiring mandibular reconstruction. Non-vascularised iliac bone graft (n = 137) was the most common method followed by ileac crest bone chips harvest using Dacron urethran osteomesh tray (n = 24) and frontoparietal grafts (n = 4). Meta-analysis of five out of six trials demonstrated an overall success rate of 85% (95% CI 79-90; I Conclusions: NVBGs are a practical, cost-effective and favourable method of war zone management of mandibular defects with success rates comparable to those reported in the civilian literature. However, general trauma principles take precedence to rule out life-threatening injuries. Due consideration of patient factors, surgical factors, and available resources are required in the first-line management of combat-related mandibular defects.
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.