ArticleFrontiers in veterinary science2024
Mechanical evaluation of mandibular fractures stabilized with absorbable implants or intraoral splints in cats.
Article in Frontiers in veterinary science, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Description of an Intraoral Lingual Arch Fixation Technique for the Treatment of Mandibular Body Fractures in Dogs and Its Application in Six Patients.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2026Article
- Clinical outcomes of mandibular body fracture management using wire-reinforced intraoral composite splints in 15 cats.Frontiers in veterinary science · 2025Article
- Clinical and diagnostic imaging outcomes of mandibular fracture management in 109 cats.Frontiers in veterinary science · 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
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Introduction: The goal of this cadaver study in cats was to compare the mechanical properties of intact mandibles (C) with mandibles whose simulated fracture was located between the third and fourth premolar teeth and repaired with four possible treatments: (1) Stout multiple loop interdental wiring plus bis-acryl composite intraoral splint (S); (2) modified Risdon interdental wiring plus bis-acryl composite intraoral splint (R); (3) ultrasound-aided absorbable fixation plate (P); and (4) ultrasound-aided absorbable fixation mesh (M). Materials and methods: Thirty feline mandibles were randomly assigned to the control and treatment groups. Mandibles were loaded by cantilever bending on the canine tooth, first in non-destructive cyclic loading followed by destructive ramp-to-failure loading. Results: Cyclic loading showed no differences between the treatment groups in angular deflection (a measure of sample flexion under non-destructive loads); however, the R group had significantly higher angular deflection than the C group. In destructive testing, no differences in mechanical properties were found between the treatment groups; however, all treatment groups demonstrated significantly lower maximum bending moment, bending stiffness, energy to failure, and maximum force when compared to the control group. The main mode of failure of the intraoral splint groups (S and R) was fracture of the bis-acryl composite (50%), and the main mode of failure of the absorbable fixation groups (P and M) was fracture of the pins (91.7%). Discussion: Intraoral splint and absorbable fixation methods have low strength and stiffness. The four treatments tested provided similar stabilization of mandibular fractures located between the third and fourth premolar teeth.
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.