Question · asked by 1 review
3-dimensional (3D) miniplates vs Standard (Champy) plates: Post-operative adverse events and complications
- Population
- Adults (16 to 68 years) with mandibular fractures excluding condylar involvement
- Intervention
- 3-dimensional (3D) miniplates
- Comparison
- Standard (Champy) plates
- Outcome
- Post-operative adverse events and complications
What each review found
Include earlier review versions| Finding | Effect | Studies | GRADE certainty |
|---|---|---|---|
3-dimensional (3D) miniplates vs Standard (Champy) plates Post-operative adverse events and complications · Adults (16 to 68 years) with mandibular fractures excluding condylar involvement Interventions for the management of mandibular fractures (2013) · Cochrane All outcomes | Jain 2010 (3D group): segmental mobility (two), proximity to mental nerve or roots (two), radiologically unsatisfactory reduction (one) and unsatisfactory fixation (four) vs one (standard); only fixation differed… | 2 studies | GRADE not reported |
Findings are shown side by side, never pooled across reviews.
The reviews
| Review | Searched up to | Included studies | AMSTAR 2 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Interventions for the management of mandibular fractures 2013 · Cochrane All outcomes | 2013-02 | Not listed | Not assessed |
How reviews are matched to this question
Reviews word the same question differently. Four decision models (TypeSafe's Jev, Liquid AI's d1-ultra, SubQ Snap and Baseten's Elephant) judged each wording of the population, intervention, comparator and outcome against the others; two wordings count as the same when at least three of them agree and none clearly disagrees, and findings count as this question only when all four elements match. Timing, setting and subgroup never split a question: they are shown on each finding.