ArticleCraniomaxillofacial trauma & reconstruction2026
A Retrospective Cohort Outcome Study Comparing Gingival Margin and Buccal Sulcus Incisions for Mandibular Fracture Access.
Article in Craniomaxillofacial trauma & reconstruction, 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
(1) Background: The main intraoral incisions used in the operative management of mandibular fractures are gingival margin incisions and buccal sulcus incisions. The aim of this retrospective cohort study was to compare postoperative outcomes between incision types and guide future operative protocols. (2) Methods: Data was collected from Queen's Medical Centre in Nottingham, a level I major trauma centre. BlueSpier was used to identify mandibular fracture patients operated on between January 2023 and January 2025. Digital health records were used to obtain patient demographics and postoperative outcomes. Primary outcome measures were postoperative infection and wound dehiscence. Secondary outcome measures were return to theatre and new numbness or paraesthesia. (3) Results: In this cohort, 138 patients underwent operative management for a mandibular fracture through an intraoral incision; 60 patients had a gingival margin incision and 78 patients had a buccal sulcus incision. No statistically significant difference was found between the gingival margin and buccal sulcus incision groups for the primary and secondary outcome measures. (4) Conclusions: Incision choice is dependent on mandibular fracture location and surgeon preference. Both incisions were used by most of the operating surgeons. This study was not designed as an equivalence or non-inferiority study. Further larger-scale studies are needed to identify superior outcomes of one 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.