Comparison of straight mini-plates vs. trapezoidal plates for internal fixation in condylar fractures: a systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction:The advancement of technology has introduced various fixation methods to ensure optimal bone healing in open treatment and internal fixation of maxillofacial fractures.Trapezoidal plates are specifically deve loped for the condyle region to resist forces and stresses in 3 dimensions: bending, shearing, and torsion.Objectives: This systematic review aimed to evaluate the clinical outcomes of open treatment and internal fixation in the treatment of condylar fractures using trapezoidal plates, and compared with the usage of straight miniplates. Material and methods:A systematic search using PRISMA framework was conducted in five online databases (PubMed, Medline, Scopus, Embase, and Cochrane Library) in December 2022 to obtain relevant comparative stu dies reporting trapezoidal and straight miniplates in condylar fracture patients within the last 10 years.Inclusion criteria were adult patients, minimum followup duration of 3 months, and outcomes, including mouth opening, duration of operation, and any notable postoperative complications.Results: A total of 8 studies with 224 patients were considered, which compared the efficacy of trapezoidal plates and straight miniplates in the treatment of condylar fracture.All of them mentioned the superiority of trapezoi dal plates, especially in terms of duration and ease of insertion; however, most studies also mentioned their results insignificance.Nevertheless, 5 studies found that complications still occur postsurgery, even with trapezoidal plates as the fixator.Conclusions: Trapezoidal plates can serve as alternative fixator for the open treatment of condylar fractures.Considerations of degree of severity and operator factors are needed in the decision of using trapezoidal plates.
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 | 0.039 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.014 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| 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) | 0.004 | 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".