ArticleCureus2025
Transbuccal With Transoral Versus Transoral-Only Approach for Open Reduction and Internal Fixation of Mandibular Angle Fractures: A Prospective Study.
Article in Cureus, 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
introductionMandibular angle fractures, a common type of maxillofacial trauma, often require surgical intervention through open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) due to the intricate interplay of muscle forces causing displacement. This study compared the transbuccal combined with transoral approach (transbuccal with transoral approach) and the standalone transoral approaches for ORIF of mandibular angle fractures, evaluating ease of surgical access, fracture fixation stability, surgical duration, radiographic alignment, facial scarring, and postoperative occlusion to determine the optimal method. MATERIALS AND
methodsThis prospective, non-randomized clinical study enrolled 32 patients (aged 18-60 years) with mandibular angle fractures at Teerthanker Mahaveer Dental College and Research Centre, Moradabad, India, over 18 months. Patients were allocated to Group A (transbuccal with transoral approach, n = 16, using 3D miniplates) or Group B (standalone transoral approach, n = 16, using 4-hole miniplates) based on the surgeon's preference. Outcomes were assessed by calibrated surgeons: ease of access (good, fair, poor), stability (bimanual palpation on Day 2 and 3 months), surgical duration (incision to closure), radiographic alignment on Day 2, scarring (hypertrophic, barely visible, invisible at 1 and 3 months), and occlusion (satisfactory, mild discrepancy, unsatisfactory at 5 and 10 days). Statistical analysis used independent t-tests and chi-square tests (p < 0.05).
resultsGroup A showed complete male predominance (p = 0.032), with no age difference (Group A: 27.12 ± 6.45 years; Group B: 29.37 ± 8.34 years; p = 0.36). Both groups achieved 100% stability on Day 2 and at 3 months (p = 1). Group A had longer surgical times (101.56 ± 7.33 min vs. 69.62 ± 11.89 min; p=0.001). No differences were found in ease of access (p = 0.344) or alignment (p = 0.867). Group A exhibited 100% mild scarring at 1 month and 75% invisible scars at 3 months, while Group B had no visible scars. Occlusion outcomes favored Group A at 5 and 10 days (p < 0.05).
conclusionBoth approaches ensured excellent stability and alignment, but the transbuccal with transoral approach offered superior occlusal outcomes and minimal scarring, despite longer surgical times, making it preferable for complex fractures. The transoral approach, with shorter duration and no external scarring, is suitable for patients who prioritize aesthetics.
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.