Question · asked by 1 review
Locking plate vs 2 mm non-locking titanium plates: Restoration of function (functional occlusion; bite force as surrogate)
What each review found
Current versions only| Finding | Effect | Studies | GRADE certainty |
|---|---|---|---|
2 mm locking titanium plates vs 2 mm non-locking titanium plates Restoration of function (functional occlusion; bite force as surrogate) · Adults (16 to 68 years) with mandibular fractures excluding condylar involvement Interventions for the management of mandibular fractures (2013) · Cochrane All outcomes | Functional occlusion was achieved in all participants in both intervention groups (Agarwal 2011); the measurement of this outcome was not clearly reported. Bite force was reported as a surrogate/proxy outcome. | 1 study | 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 | list not extracted yet | Not assessed |
Studies behind the findings
None of these reviews ties its included studies to this outcome in the data here. Cochrane reviews and reviews with headline outcomes only do not list their studies yet.
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.