ReviewCraniomaxillofacial trauma & reconstruction2025
Matrix Wave
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 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.
- Minne Ties Hybrid Arch Bar System vs. Erich Arch Bars: A Cadaveric Comparison Study.Craniomaxillofacial trauma & reconstruction · 2026Article
- Matrix WaveCraniomaxillofacial trauma & reconstruction · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
STUDY
designTrends in the utilization of Mandibulo-Maxillary Fixation (MMF) are shifting nowadays from tooth-borne devices over specialized screws to hybrid MMF devices. Hybrid MMF devices come in self-made Erich arch bar modifications and commercial hybrid MMF systems (CHMMFSs).
objectiveWe survey the available technical/clinical data. Hypothetically, the risk of tooth root damage by transalveolar screws is diminished by a targeting function of the screw holes/slots.
methodsWe utilize a literature review and graphic displays to disclose parallels and dissimilarities in design and functionality with an in-depth look at the targeting properties.
resultsSelf-made hybrid arch bars have limitations to meet low-risk interradicular screw insertion sites. Technical/clinical information on CHMMFSs is unevenly distributed in favor of the SMARTLock System: positive outcome variables are increased speed of application/removal, the possibility to eliminate wiring and stick injuries and screw fixation with standoff of the embodiment along the attached gingiva. Inferred from the SMARTLock System, all four CHMMFs possess potential to effectively prevent tooth root injuries but are subject to their design features and targeting with the screw-receiving holes. The height profile and geometry shape of a CHMMFS may restrict three-dimensional spatial orientation and reach during placement. To bridge between interradicular spaces and tooth equators, where hooks or tie-up-cleats for intermaxillary cerclages should be ideally positioned under biomechanical aspects, can be problematic. The movability of their screw-receiving holes according to all six degrees of freedom differs.
conclusionCHMMFSs allow simple immobilization of facial fractures involving dental occlusion. The performance in avoiding tooth root damage is a matter of design subtleties.
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.