Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39387950›Full record

ArticleClinical oral investigations2024

Comparison of reconstruction plates and miniplates in mandibular defect reconstruction with free iliac flap.

Yifan Wang, Xinmiao Wang, Junqiang Bai, Shutian Guo, Zhengjun Shang, Zhe Shao

Abstract readComparative Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Clinical oral investigations, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Yifan WangState Key Laboratory of Oral & Maxillofacial Reconstruction and Regeneration, Key Laboratory of Oral Biomedicine Ministry of Education, Hubei Key Laboratory of Stomatology, School & Hospital of Stomatology, Wuhan University, Wuhan, China.
Xinmiao WangState Key Laboratory of Oral & Maxillofacial Reconstruction and Regeneration, Key Laboratory of Oral Biomedicine Ministry of Education, Hubei Key Laboratory of Stomatology, School & Hospital of Stomatology, Wuhan University, Wuhan, China.
Junqiang BaiState Key Laboratory of Oral & Maxillofacial Reconstruction and Regeneration, Key Laboratory of Oral Biomedicine Ministry of Education, Hubei Key Laboratory of Stomatology, School & Hospital of Stomatology, Wuhan University, Wuhan, China.
Shutian GuoState Key Laboratory of Oral & Maxillofacial Reconstruction and Regeneration, Key Laboratory of Oral Biomedicine Ministry of Education, Hubei Key Laboratory of Stomatology, School & Hospital of Stomatology, Wuhan University, Wuhan, China.
Zhengjun ShangState Key Laboratory of Oral & Maxillofacial Reconstruction and Regeneration, Key Laboratory of Oral Biomedicine Ministry of Education, Hubei Key Laboratory of Stomatology, School & Hospital of Stomatology, Wuhan University, Wuhan, China.
Zhe ShaoState Key Laboratory of Oral & Maxillofacial Reconstruction and Regeneration, Key Laboratory of Oral Biomedicine Ministry of Education, Hubei Key Laboratory of Stomatology, School & Hospital of Stomatology, Wuhan University, Wuhan, China. shaozhe@whu.edu.cn.

Funding

National Nature Science Foundation of China No.82373093
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveGiven the increasing demand for precise and reliable reconstructive techniques in maxillofacial surgery, we try to offer valuable insights for clinicians in selecting optimal fixation methods. MATERIALS AND

methodsPatients were categorized into miniplate and reconstruction plate groups for accuracy and bone healing comparison. We measured gonial angle, intercondylar, intergonial and anterior-posterior distance for general accuracy and distance of segmental endpoint to the sagittal plane for partial accuracy. The bone healing rate of the two groups was compared with CT images at 3, 6 and 12 months after operation.

resultConsidering directional indicators, the miniplate group exhibited a wider intercondylar distance than the reconstruction plate group (p = 0.029). At 6 months postoperatively, the miniplate group demonstrated a higher bone healing rate compared to the reconstruction plate group, with no significant differences at other time points.

conclusionOver a nearly 5-year review, mandibular reconstruction with vascularized iliac bone flaps showed that reconstruction plates better maintained condylar position accuracy, while miniplates had superior bone healing rates at 6 months. No significant differences were found in other accuracy indices between the two plates. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Clinicians' selection of fixation plates frequently depends on personal preference rather than evidence-based criteria. This study compares the precision and postoperative osseous healing outcomes of miniplates and reconstruction plates to provide a more scientifically grounded basis for clinical decision-making.

Indexed as

Bone PlatesFree Tissue FlapsIliumMandibular ReconstructionAdultAgedFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedRetrospective StudiesTomography, X-Ray ComputedTreatment OutcomeWound HealingAccuracy of reconstructionBone unionMiniplateReconstruction of mandibular defectReconstruction plate

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.