ReviewCraniomaxillofacial trauma & reconstruction2025
Redefining and Identifying Evidence-Based Indications for Open Reduction and Internal Fixation in Mandibular Condylar Fractures: A Comprehensive Systematic Review and Evidence Analysis.
Review in Craniomaxillofacial trauma & reconstruction, 2025. 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.
- The impact of condylar fracture management on facial soft tissue changes and TMJ function: a 3D CBCT evaluation of open vs. closed reduction.Clinical oral investigations · 2026Article
- Imaging-Guided Algorithmic Management of Mandibular Condylar Fractures: A 13-Year Institutional Analysis of 495 Joints.Craniomaxillofacial trauma & reconstruction · 2026Article
- Endoscope-Assisted or Skin-Approach Osteosynthesis of Mandibular Condylar Fracture-A Comparison.Journal of functional biomaterials · 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
A major controversy in maxillofacial surgery practice is the management of mandibular condylar fractures (CFs). The debate revolves around open versus closed treatment, rather than identifying clear indications whereby open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) is the most viable treatment modality. Opinions regarding precise indications for ORIF remain unclear and non-uniform. We aimed to refocus the debate regarding the optimal treatment for CFs by identifying the recent indications for ORIF in the literature and assessing the quality of the existing evidence for each indication. This systematic review searched Medline, Embase and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials for eligible studies. The included studies consisted of articles from the past 15 years involving patients with any type of CF who underwent ORIF based on specified indications. From 4711 papers, 100 studies were included. In these, 121 indications were identified. The most cited indications for ORIF were those proposed by Zide and Kent, namely displacement/angulation ≥10° and ramus height shortening of ≥2 mm. Evidence supporting these indications is weak, relying mainly on expert opinion rather than robust data, with a focus on treatment comparisons. Clear, evidence-based cutoffs regarding when ORIF is the only viable treatment option are needed for a consensus.
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.