ArticleBMC oral health2025
Risk factors of mandibular angle fractures based on digital reduction method: a retrospective analysis.
Article in BMC oral health, 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.
- Isopsoralen Promotes Mandibular Fracture Healing by Regulating Autophagy.Medical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research · 2026Article
- Clinical and anatomical characteristics of mandibular angle fractures: a 10-year retrospective monocentric cohort study.Frontiers in oral health · 2026Article
- Reconstruction plates versus single or dual miniplates for angle fractures: Hardware failure and non-union rates.Bioinformation · 2026Article
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
Abstract
aimThis study aimed to evaluate radiomorphometric risk factors for mandibular angle fractures (MAFs) by simulating pre-fracture mandibular anatomy using digital reduction techniques on cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) images. Demographic and etiological characteristics were also analyzed to identify factors associated with MAF occurrence.
methodsIn this retrospective study, 55 patients with mandibular fractures were categorized into two groups: those with mandibular angle fractures (MAF, n = 20) and those with fractures in other mandibular regions (non-MAF, n = 35). High-resolution CBCT scans were analyzed following digital fragment realignment using Materialise Mimics 25.0. Radiomorphometric measurements included gonial angle, ramus height, and ramus width. Demographic variables, third molar status, and trauma etiology were evaluated. Statistical analysis was performed using Mann-Whitney U, chi-square, Fisher's exact, and independent samples t tests, with a significance level of p < 0.05.
resultsPatients in the MAF group were significantly younger (median age: 21 vs. 27 years; p = 0.002) and predominantly male (90%). Third molars were more frequently observed in the MAF group (85%) and were significantly associated with angle fractures (p = 0.019). Condylar fractures occurred in 42.9% of the non-MAF group but were absent in the MAF group (p < 0.001).
conclusionCBCT combined with digital reduction improves anatomical assessment and standardization in fracture evaluation. Younger age, male gender, and the presence of third molars were significantly associated with MAFs. Third molars may represent a modifiable risk factor for mandibular angle fractures and should be considered carefully in clinical prevention strategies.
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.