ArticleBioinformation2026
Comparative analysis of closed versus open reduction and internal fixation in mandibular fractures: A prospective study.
Article in Bioinformation, 2026. 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Mandibular fractures are among the most frequently encountered maxillofacial injuries. Yet, the optimal management strategy between closed and open reduction with internal fixation (ORIF) remains a topic of considerable debate, given differences in functional outcomes and complication rates. Therefore, it is of interest to evaluate and compare the clinical, functional and radiographic outcomes of closed reduction (CR) using maxillomandibular fixation and ORIF using titanium miniplates in patients with isolated mandibular fractures. Eighty patients were randomly allocated into two groups-Group A (CR, n=40) treated with arch bar fixation for four to six weeks and Group B (ORIF, n=40) treated with titanium miniplates via intraoral or extraoral approaches - and followed for six months. The evaluated parameters included fracture union period, maximum mouth opening, masticatory efficiency, occlusal accuracy, complication rates, nutritional status and overall patient satisfaction. Thus, we show that while both methods achieve similar union and occlusal outcomes, ORIF provides superior functional rehabilitation and satisfaction, establishing it as the preferred choice when resources and expertise are available.
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.