Three dimensional versus standard miniplate fixation in the management of mandibular fractures: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Abstract

The aim of this meta-analysis is to evaluate the efficacy of the 3-dimensional miniplate system in comparison with the standard miniplate system for the treatment of mandibular fractures (MFs). A systematic review was conducted according to PRISMA guidelines, examining Medline-Ovid, Embase, and PubMed databases. The primary search objective was to identify all papers reporting the results of randomized control trials (RCTs) for the treatment of adults with mandibular fractures, with the aim of comparing the different techniques. The incidence of complications was evaluated; nine studies including 283 patients with different fracture sites were enrolled in the analysis. The results showed no significant differences in overall complications (odds ratio [OR], 0.92; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.552–1.542; P = 0.81), postoperative infections (OR, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.40–2.48; P = 0.89), wound dehiscence (OR, 0.96; 95% CI, 0.13–7.37; P = 0.96), paresthesia (OR, 0.47; 95% CI, 0.20–1.07; P = 0.11), or malocclusion (OR, 1.8; 95% CI, 0.39–8.32; P = 0.47) between standard miniplates and 3-dimensional miniplates for treating mandibular fractures. Mandibular fractures treated with 3-dimensional miniplates and standard miniplates presented similar short-term complication rates, and the low postoperative maxillomandibular fixation rate of using standard miniplates also indicated that the standard miniplate has a promising application in the treatment of mandibular fractures.

Keywords

• 3-Dimensional versus standard miniplate
• Mandibular fractures
• Meta-analysis