ArticleFrontiers in oral health2026
Case Report: Soft-tissue-preserving fixation for displaced segmental maxillary fractures involving partially detached bone segments.
Article in Frontiers in oral health, 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Displaced segmental maxillary fractures involving partially detached bone segments are difficult to manage because treatment requires both stable fixation and preservation of residual vascularity. Excessive mucoperiosteal elevation may further compromise the blood supply of a displaced segment and increase the risk of bone resorption, sequestration, or necrosis. This report presents two cases of displaced segmental maxillary fractures treated with soft-tissue-preserving fixation strategies. Case presentation: Two patients with displaced segmental maxillary fractures were managed using individualized mucosa-related fixation techniques. In the first case, a 35-year-old man presented with a large displaced anterior maxillary segment and loss of local buttress support. After restoration of the occlusal relationship, the segment was stabilized using intraoral epimucosal reconstruction plate fixation. In the second case, a 51-year-old woman sustained an open maxillofacial injury with a dentoalveolar segment involving teeth 23-25. The segment showed complete loss of bony continuity with the surrounding maxilla, with only limited labial mucosal attachment remaining. Palatal transmucosal screw fixation with long titanium screws was performed to stabilize the segment while preserving the residual labial soft-tissue attachment. Both patients achieved stable reduction and satisfactory healing. No obvious postoperative necrosis, sequestration, infection, or exposure of fixation materials was observed. In the second case, the preserved dentoalveolar segment achieved bony healing, and teeth 23-25 remained stable during follow-up. Conclusion: In these two cases of displaced segmental maxillary fractures, preservation of residual soft-tissue attachments appeared to contribute to segment survival when adequate reduction and stable fixation could be achieved. Mucosa-related fixation may be considered as an individualized option in carefully selected patients with potentially viable partially detached segments. These observations are preliminary and hypothesis-generating, and further studies with larger case series and longer follow-up are needed to clarify the indications, limitations, and long-term outcomes of this approach.
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.