Internal Fixation of Mandibular Angle Fractures: A Meta-Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The degree of rigidity of internal fixation required for the treatment of mandibular angle fractures has long been at the center of debate in the literature. A statistical comparison between rigid fixation and monocortical fixation has been difficult because of multiple terms, definitions, and technical variations. The purpose of this study was to use the meta-analysis tool to combine information from multiple studies and to compare complication rates for different fixation methods. METHODS: An English language literature search was conducted for articles on mandibular angle fractures. Information was collected on four variables of interest: compression/noncompression technique, monocortical/bicortical screws, number of plates, and location of plates. Five outcome rates were analyzed: infection, reoperation, hardware removal, malunion, and nonunion. Meta-analyses were run using Comprehensive Meta Analysis, version 2.2.03. RESULTS: Twenty-four studies with relevant data on the variables and outcomes of interest met the inclusion criteria. Significantly higher rates of infection, reoperation, and hardware removal were found for compression compared with noncompression, two plates compared with one plate, and for plates located on both the inferior and superior borders as compared with superior or inferior only. There were also significantly higher infection rates for bicortical screws compared with monocortical screws and higher malunion rates for compression compared with noncompression plating techniques. CONCLUSION: The results of this meta-analysis found lower complication rates with the use of noncompression, monocortical, and single-plate fixation, supporting the trend toward a single, superiorly placed, monocortical miniplate for fixation of mandibular angle fractures.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.011 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.014 | 0.049 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".