ArticleJournal of pharmacy & bioallied sciences2024
Comparative Assessment of Double Y-Shaped Versus Conventional Miniplates in Fixation of Mandibular Fractures.
Article in Journal of pharmacy & bioallied sciences, 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.
- Effect of a double Y-shaped miniplate over traditional miniplate in treating mandibular anterior fractures.Bioinformation · 2026Article
- Dual mini-plate vs. T-plate fixation for Edinburgh type IB proximal clavicle fractures: a comparative clinical study.American journal of translational research · 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Aims: The study aims to enhance the patient's quality of life by assessing and contrasting the effectiveness of traditional miniplates and double Y-shaped titanium plates in the treatment of mandibular anterior fractures. Method: Ten patients with anterior mandibular fractures participated in the study and were randomly divided into two groups (Group A and Group B). The arch bar was inserted once the patient was prepared, and IMF was performed as necessary. An intraoral vestibular incision was made to expose and reduce the fracture site, leaving a 5 mm gingival cuff in place. Group A received fixation using 2 mm double Y-shaped titanium plates and 2 * 8 mm titanium screws, while Group B received fixation using two conventional miniplates and 2 * 8 mm titanium screws. Metrogyl wash was administered, and closure was achieved using 3.0 Vicryl, ensuring sufficient hemostasis. After 48 hours, Dynaplast was used to stabilize the fixation, and IMF was released. Result: Clinical and radiographic parameters like pain scale, neurosensory dysfunction, wound problems, fracture line width, teeth related to fracture line, and healing progression were assessed at immediate postop, 3 months, and 6 months intervals. Pain was reduced similarly till 3 months where Group A did not report pain at 6 months showing significant differences. On assessing neurosensory disturbance, Group A showed superior difference (p 0.03*). Wound healing, stability of fractured segments, fracture reduction, teeth related to fracture line, and healing improvement were adequate in both groups. Conclusion: Our study concluded that the use of double Y-shaped titanium plate provides a promising and alternative technique over conventional in the management of anterior mandibular 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.