Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jun 7, 2025
Treatment of Facial Deformities using 3D Planning and Printing of Patient-Specific Implants
Published on: May 23, 2020
Two Miniplates Versus Three Dimensional Plate in Management of Mandibular Condylar Fractures: A Systematic Review and
Santhosh Kumar Kuna1, Anuj Jain2, Vishala Kuna3
1Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, St. Paul Hospital Millenium Medical College, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.
Study Design:
Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.
Objective:
This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to compare the efficacy of 2 miniplates vs a three-dimensional plate in the management of mandibular condylar fractures. The primary objective was to assess key parameters, including intraoperative time, maximum mouth opening, complications, and functional outcomes, to determine potential differences between the 2 fixation methods.
Methods:
A comprehensive literature search was conducted to identify relevant studies. Inclusion criteria were applied, and the selected studies underwent systematic review. The key parameters were extracted and subjected to meta-analysis to quantify and compare the outcomes associated with the use of 2 miniplates and three-dimensional plates. The methodologies of the included studies were critically evaluated to address potential biases and confounding factors.
Results:
The meta-analysis results indicated that there were no statistically significant differences between the 2 fixation methods in terms of intraoperative time, maximum mouth opening, complications, and functional outcomes. However, concerns were raised regarding the high risk of bias, confounding factors, and considerable heterogeneity observed across the reviewed studies.
Conclusions:
The findings suggest that both 2 miniplates and three-dimensional plates are viable options for the management of mandibular condylar fractures. Despite the lack of statistical significance in the observed differences, the study highlights the need for further prospective research with enhanced methodologies, standardized protocols, larger sample sizes, and reduced bias to refine our understanding and potentially influence clinical management protocols.
