Current Evidence for the Management of Edentulous Atrophic Mandible Fractures: A PRISMA-SWiM Guided Review
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Study Design: PRISMA-SWiM guided systematic review. Objective: 1. Provide consistent evidence regarding the management of atrophic mandible fractures; 2. To search, evaluate and validate existing guidelines if any for the management; 3. Provide evidence regarding specific management of condylar fractures in the atrophic mandible; 4. To address the clinical applicability of bone grafts. Methods: A systematic review was conducted using the PRISMA-SWiM protocol. PROSPERO ID: CRD42021235111. Studies with adequate data on outcome, treatment methods were selected. Isolated case reports, case series, and non-human studies were excluded. Quality assessment was done using Newcastle -Ottawa scale. The level of evidence was assessed using Oxford Level of Evidence. Results: Mandibular body was the most common type of fracture. Self falls and RTA were the most common etiologies. Condylar fracture was most commonly managed conservatively with ORIF employed in few studies. For the mandible compression and non-compression osteosynthesis were used. Bone grafts were used in cases with segmental defects or cases requiring augmentation. Conclusions: There is lack of proper evidence to definitely conclude any single treatment modality. However, the consensus is towards ORIF. Reconstruction plates are preferred by many authors. However, unilateral fractures may be managed by miniplates. Bilateral fractures require more rigid fixations. Open reduction and internal fixation of condylar fracture is indicated in cases with displacement or low-level 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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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 it