ArticleBioinformation2025
3D plates for managing angle and body fracture.
Article in Bioinformation, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- A Biomechanical Assessment of three Types of Plating Systems in a Combined Mandibular Parasymphysis and Angle Fracture - AnAnnals of maxillofacial surgeryArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Management of angle and body fractures using 3D plates is of interest. Hence, patients were allocated into two distinct study groups of 25 each divided into experimental group which received 3D plate for fracture fixation and control participants who received the standard flat plates. The experimental 3D plate group obtained superior clinical outcomes when compared to the traditional plate group based on assessments of pain relief visual analog scale [(VAS) score: 3.2±1.4 vs. 5.1±2.0], functional progress (FIM score: 24.5±3.1 vs. 20.5±3.8), patient mobility rate (80% vs. 62%) throughout the study periods. Bony union time remained shorter (8.5±1.2 weeks vs. 12.3±1.5 weeks) for the experimental group with 3D plates while they experienced fewer complications (8% vs. 40%) during the treatment period as well as a faster weight-bearing recovery time (9.2±1.1 weeks vs. 13.4±1.4 weeks). Thus, the medical benefits of using three-dimensional plates in angle and body fracture management greatly surpass the features found in standard flat plates.
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.