Question · asked by 1 review
Transbuccal miniplate combined with intraoral approach vs Intraoral approach alone: Restoration of function (malocclusion; interincisor mouth opening)
What each review found
Include earlier review versions| Finding | Effect | Studies | GRADE certainty |
|---|---|---|---|
Transbuccal miniplate combined with intraoral approach vs Intraoral approach alone Restoration of function (malocclusion; interincisor mouth opening) · Adults with fractures of the mandibular angle · 3 months, Angle of mandible only Interventions for the management of mandibular fractures (2013) · Cochrane All outcomes | Persistent malocclusion was minimal, reported in one participant in each group at the 3-month follow-up. Mean interincisor mouth opening at 3 months 37.68 mm (range 17 to 50) combined approach vs 38.19 mm (range 22 to… | 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.