SynthesisBMC oral health2025
Is extracorporeal fixation in mandibular condylar fractures a viable option? a systematic review.
Synthesis in BMC oral health, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundMandibular condyle fractures (MCFs) are common injuries, often resulting from trauma and leading to functional complications. Treatment approaches remain debated, with extracorporeal fixation emerging as a potential alternative to conventional methods. This study explores the effectiveness and outcomes of this technique to guide clinical decision-making. MATERIALS AND
methodsA comprehensive search was conducted across PubMed, EMBASE, and BVS (VHL) for studies published until August 2024. The review included observational studies and clinical trials that assessed postoperative complications following extracorporeal fixation in MCFs.
resultsThirty-one studies, comprising 436 participants, were included. Data were extracted on trauma etiology, fracture classification, surgical approaches, and complications such as condylar resorption, which was the most common (18.58%). The studies varied in surgical techniques, with submandibular (40.62%) and retromandibular (37.5%) accesses being the most common. Osteosynthesis materials such as miniplates, screws, and wires were frequently used. Follow-up durations ranged from immediate post-operative periods to 15 years. The quality assessment revealed fair to moderate study quality, with observational studies generally showing methodological limitations, such as sample size issues and heterogeneity in surgical technique and follow-up. Despite concerns about condylar resorption and temporomandibular joint dysfunction, most studies reported that these complications did not significantly affect function or occlusion.
conclusionsExtracorporeal fixation of MCFs offers a promising alternative in cases with limited condylar access where conventional methods may fail. Despite a higher risk of condylar resorption, studies suggest minimal long-term functional impairment. This technique remains viable for complex fractures. However, robust clinical trials are needed to evaluate long-term outcomes, particularly regarding resorption and postoperative recovery, given their potential to affect mandibular function, occlusion, and temporomandibular joint health.
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.