A Prospective Quality Control Study on Methods Used for the Treatment of Non-Complicated Mandibular Angle Fractures by Open Reduction and Internal Fixation in Manitoba
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Mandibular fracture is a common diagnosis that the Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeon is presented with, and its management is a critical skill for a competent trauma surgeon. One of the most commonly fractured regions of the mandible is that of the mandibular angle, found where the tooth-bearing corpus of the mandible meets the ascending ramus. While the mandibular angle fracture is a particularly common injury, there remains some openness in the interpretation of the best manner in which to establish fixation in these cases. The Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery Department at the University of Manitoba treats mandibular angle fractures by open reduction internal fixation using one of two typical plating orientations. The first method positions a miniplate angled along the superolateral aspect of the external oblique ridge spanning the fracture site, while the second method positions a miniplate strictly on the lateral aspect of the mandible across the fracture site. The purpose of this study was to compare the post-operative outcomes of these two plating methods. The study consisted of eighteen patients with mandibular angle fractures eligible for treatment by open reduction internal fixation that were randomly assigned to two treatment groups: Group A (N=8) with the miniplate oriented at the superolateral aspect of the mandible, and Group B (N=10) with the miniplate oriented on the lateral aspect of the mandible. Patients in each group were followed prospectively at 1-week, 4-week and 6-month post- operative time intervals for outcomes that included post-operative malocclusion, maximal interincisal opening, paresthesia, pain, swelling, development of infection, and surgical site dehiscence. There was no statistically significant difference found between the two plating orientation methods in each of the aforementioned outcomes.
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 | 0.006 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".