Treatment Delay Impact on Open Reduction Internal Fixation of Mandibular Fractures: A Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The impact of mandible fracture treatment delay has been contested in the literature for decades, with conventional wisdom favoring earlier surgical treatment to prevent postoperative complications, primarily infection. Through a systematic review of all available evidence, this study aims to determine whether delay to open reduction and internal fixation of traumatic mandibular fractures influences outcomes. METHODS: MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, and Web of Science were systematically searched for English language literature pertaining to the above research question and screened in duplicate. Methodological quality scoring was performed using MINORS criteria. Qualitative and quantitative findings from relevant studies are presented. RESULTS: Twenty eligible studies including 2,671 patients had open reduction internal fixation, with or without adjunct mandibulomaxillary fixation. All studies were observational cohort or case-control studies of low methodological quality with a mean MINORS score of 6.5 of 16 (40.6%) for noncomparative studies and 11.2 of 24 (46.7%) for comparative studies. Only 5 of 20 (25%) studies recommended earlier treatment. Due to insufficient reporting of data and study heterogeneity, the impact of treatment delay on complications could not be quantitatively analyzed. CONCLUSIONS: There is substantial heterogeneity and no consensus on the definition of "early" versus "delayed" surgical treatment for patients with traumatic mandibular fractures. The majority of included studies do not make a recommendation for earlier treatment. Future, well-designed prospective studies are essential to determine if there is an optimal surgical treatment delay of mandibular fractures that mitigates the risk of infectious and noninfectious complications.
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 | 0.017 | 0.089 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.009 | 0.010 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.011 | 0.012 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".