Management of Pediatric Mandibular Fractures Using Resorbable Plates
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Despite there being several clinical studies reporting promising outcomes of resorbable plates for fixation of pediatric mandible fractures, the literature is devoid of large studies or comprehensive reviews assessing safety rates, complications and long-term outcomes. The purpose of the current review is to obtain a global consensus, shed light on efficacy and complications, and provide the reader with evidence-based data to help guide clinical management. METHODS: A systematic review of clinical studies assessing outcomes for resorbable plates in pediatric mandibular fractures was carried out. The main outcomes included infection, hardware failure, hardware exposure, malocclusion, reoperation and nonunion. Overall rates were pooled and stratified by fracture and implant type. RESULTS: Ten studies were included yielding 232 patients with 269 fractures. The mean age at surgery was 8.24 years with a mean follow up of 1.03 years. The overall complication rate was 5.2% (n = 12). Complications included infection (n = 4, 1.7%), hardware exposure (n = 3, 1.29%), wound dehiscence (n = 2, .86%) and intra-oral fistula formation (n = 2, .86%). One patient (0.43%) had malocclusion and none (0%) had hardware failure, nonunion or revision surgery. Patients with multiple fractures (≥ 2) had higher complication rates compared to isolated fractures (12.5% versus 1.7%). CONCLUSION: The use of resorbable plates for pediatric mandibular fractures is a viable option with similar rates of post-operative complications and outcomes compared to standard metallic counterparts. In the absence of large studies or systematic reviews, this study provides craniofacial surgeons with an evidence-based reference to guide decision making and improve informed consent.
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 | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".