POSTOPERATIVE OUTCOMES OF PLATE VERSUS SCREW FIXATION IN MANDIBULAR FRACTURES: A COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS: A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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 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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".