ArticleOral and maxillofacial surgery2024
Clinical results of two different three-dimensional plate types for the treatment of mandibular angle fractures: a retrospective analysis.
Article in Oral and maxillofacial surgery, 2024. 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.
- Assessment of accuracy and efficiency of guided fixation of customized 3D miniplates vs Champy's technique in stabilization of mandibular angle fractures: A randomized controlled trial.Clinical oral investigations · 2026Trial
- Feasibility assessment of fixation patterns in multiple mandibular fractures: A clinical study.Bioinformation · 2026Article
- One-plate versus two-plate fixation in the treatment of mandibular angle fractures: a retrospective two-centre comparative study.Head & face medicine · 2025Observational
- Fracture Fixation Using Three-dimensional Plate versus Two-dimensional Plate in Mandibular Angle Fractures - A Comparative Study.Annals of maxillofacial surgeryArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThe purpose of this study was to compare two different designs of three-dimensional osteosynthesis plates for their suitability in the treatment of mandibular angle fractures in terms of sufficient fracture healing and concomitant complications. MATERIALS AND
methodsRetrospectively a total of 54 patients with 56 mandibular angle fractures were evaluated. Two different types of three-dimensional plates from the Medartis Trilock system were analyzed: (A) Square design plate (☐-plate) with a thickness of 1.0 mm, and (B) triangular-shaped 3D-plate (△-plate) with a thickness of 1.3 mm. Patient demographics, fracture mechanism and intraoperative details were recorded during an average follow-up period of 1 year.
resultsThe utilization of △-plates was observed to entail a considerably lengthier surgical time in contrast to ☐-plate systems (P = 0.037). The application of △-plate showed a tendency of higher incidence of major complications than ☐-plate (P = 0.06), as evidenced by the occurrence of non-union in 2 out of 22 cases, resulting in higher surgical revision rate for △-plate (P = 0.027).
conclusionSufficient treatment of mandibular angle fractures is feasible by using 1.0 mm thick, square shaped three-dimensional plate systems. The use of thicker three-dimensional osteosynthesis plates seems to significantly increase the operating time and complication rates, whereby the geometry of the plate seems to have an influence. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: The plate design could have an impact on treatment outcomes of mandibular angle fractures. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: Not 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.