SynthesisMedicina oral, patologia oral y cirugia bucal2025
Comparison between different intermaxillary fixation systems in the surgical and orthopedic treatment of non-condylar mandibular fractures. Systematic review.
Synthesis in Medicina oral, patologia oral y cirugia bucal, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe treatment of mandibular fractures can be orthopedic and/or surgical; in both modalities, intermaxillary fixation is a therapeutic tool that allows for the stabilization and reduction of fractures, guiding dental occlusion There are different methods of intermaxillary fixation, each with individual characteristics that provide therapeutic options for the practitioner. This study aims to perform a quantitative and qualitative comparison of different features of these intermaxillary fixation systems through a systematic review. MATERIAL AND
methodsA systematic review was performed, following the PRISMA guidelines. The Pubmed, SCOPUS, Web of Science and Cochrane databases were searched. Several variables were considered and are presented comprehensively in tables and figures. The initial literature search resulted in 51 articles, of which 9 met the inclusion criteria for the analysis.
resultsOf the 51 identified articles, 28 were analyzed, with 19 excluded after full-text evaluation. Ultimately, 9 studies with 3,221 patients were included, comparing Erich arch bars (EAB), hybrid arch bars (HAB), and intermaxillary fixation screws (IMFS). DISCUSSION: The studies focused on simple fractures with sufficient teeth for orthopedic treatment, excluding isolated maxillary fractures. Results showed differences in installation time, occlusal stability, oral hygiene, and costs, with EAB being the most expensive. Patient quality of life and complications, such as screw loss and root perforations, were also evaluated. Most studies presented a low risk of bias.
conclusionsScrew-based methods like IMFS and HAB offer shorter installation times than EAB, reducing surgery duration, costs, and biosecurity risks. While EAB remains a valid option, screw methods provide advantages in time, hygiene control, and biosecurity, with the choice depending on patient needs and surgical experience.
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.