ArticleJournal of maxillofacial and oral surgery2025
Comparison of Treatment Outcomes of Zygomatic Arch Fracture by USG-Guided Closed Reduction against Conventional Closed Reduction-A Quasi-Randomized Controlled Trial.
Article in Journal of maxillofacial and oral surgery, 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The closed reduction for zygomatic arch fracture relies on indirect techniques like auditory or tactile feedback intra-operatively and are confirmed post-operatively by radiographs. The aim of this study was to investigate the efficacy of USG-guided arch fracture reduction against conventional reduction techniques. Methodology: The patients were randomly allocated for this quasi-randomized controlled trial and study was double-blinded. The fracture reduction was done under USG guidance in test group (USG group). The primary outcome assessed was evaluation of post-operative SMV x-ray. The change in discontinuity pattern between the pre-operative and post-operative x-ray was used to assess the adequacy of reduction. Inter-group analysis was done to compare the outcomes of the test and control group. Secondary outcomes assessed were maximal inter-incisal mouth opening (MIO) and depression along the zygomatic arch. Results: Study comprised of 29 patients, amongst which 10 patients underwent fracture reduction under USG guidance, while 19 patients underwent reduction by conventional method. Fisher's exact test of post-operative SMV showed a significant difference (p 0.05) between USG group and control group, with the results favouring the USG-guided reduction. Conclusion: USG-guided reduction of zygomatic arch fracture can lead to better fracture reduction in comparison to conventional method of closed zygomatic arch reduction. Supplementary Information: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s12663-025-02528-x.
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.