ReviewCureus2025
Facial Fractures Associated With Craniomaxillofacial Trauma in Adults: A Literature Review.
Review in Cureus, 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.
- Article
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
Craniomaxillofacial trauma includes all injuries to the head, face, and jaw. Among these, facial fractures are particularly significant because of their functional, aesthetic, and emotional impact. They are most frequently sustained by young men and can affect essential functions such as chewing, speaking, and breathing, while also leading to psychological consequences. The purpose of this review was to examine recent scientific literature on facial fractures within the context of craniomaxillofacial trauma, focusing on epidemiology, diagnosis, and management. A bibliographic search was conducted in PubMed, Scopus, and ScienceDirect for articles published between 2020 and 2025, in Spanish and English. The inclusion criteria were original publications, systematic reviews, and evidence-based clinical guidelines. Exclusion criteria included duplicates, studies limited to pediatric populations, and those with low clinical applicability. The review incorporated observational studies, narrative reviews, and publications from scientific societies. The findings showed that the most common fracture types were nasal, mandibular, and zygomatic complex fractures. The main causes were interpersonal violence, traffic accidents, and falls, with the latter more frequent among older adults. Computed tomography (CT) scanning remains the imaging modality of choice. Advances in surgical techniques, including virtual planning, intraoperative navigation, and 3D printing, have improved accuracy and reduced complications. Nevertheless, challenges such as malocclusion, facial asymmetry, and postoperative infection persist. The management of facial fractures requires a multidisciplinary, structured approach supported by scientific evidence and technological innovation. Continued improvement in both functional and aesthetic outcomes depends on strengthening professional training, advancing high-quality clinical research, and ensuring equitable access to specialized care.
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.