MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4415223959 · doi:10.71000/6pd53p52

POSTOPERATIVE OUTCOMES OF PLATE VERSUS SCREW FIXATION IN MANDIBULAR FRACTURES: A COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS: A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW

2025· review· en· W4415223959 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Nadia Munir, Huda Muneer, Noor Ul Ain, Changaiz Khan, Ayesha Malik, Muhammad Kamil

Bibliographic record

VenueInsights-Journal of Life and Social Sciences · 2025
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicFacial Trauma and Fracture Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFixation (population genetics)Cochrane LibraryRandomized controlled trialObservational studyInternal fixationMeta-analysis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: The optimal surgical fixation technique for mandibular fractures remains a subject of debate, with plate and screw fixation being the two primary modalities. While both aim to achieve rigid internal fixation, their comparative impact on postoperative outcomes such as healing, stability, and complications is not well-synthesized in recent literature. Objective: This systematic review aimed to evaluate and compare the postoperative outcomes of plate versus screw fixation in the management of mandibular fractures. Methods: A systematic review was conducted following PRISMA guidelines. A comprehensive search of PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library was performed for studies published between 2014 and 2024. Inclusion criteria encompassed randomized controlled trials and prospective observational studies directly comparing plate and screw fixation in adult patients with mandibular fractures. Data on healing, stability, and complications were extracted, and the risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane RoB 2 tool and the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Results: Eight studies (n=438 patients) were included. The analysis revealed no significant difference between the two techniques in terms of bone healing time or postoperative occlusal stability. However, screw fixation was associated with a potentially lower incidence of postoperative infection in some studies, while plate fixation demonstrated a lower risk of neurosensory deficits in symphyseal fractures. A meta-analysis was not feasible due to significant clinical heterogeneity. Conclusion: Both plate and screw fixation are effective for managing mandibular fractures, with comparable primary healing outcomes. The choice of technique may be influenced by fracture-specific factors and the differential risk profile for specific complications. Higher-quality, standardized trials are needed to strengthen these conclusions.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.012
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.046
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.063

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0120.046
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0120.015
Bibliometrics0.0090.008
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.110
GPT teacher head0.432
Teacher spread0.322 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInsights-Journal of Life and Social SciencesSame topicFacial Trauma and Fracture ManagementFrench-language works237,207