Wusiman Patiguli, Tuerxun Julaiti, Yaolidaxi Buhiliqiemu, Moming Adili
*Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, The First Affiliated Hospital of Xinjiang Medical University†Stomatological Research Institute of Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region‡Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, The First People's Hospital in Kashkar Region, Urumqi, China.
J Craniofac Surg. 2017 Sep;28(6):1456-1461. doi: 10.1097/SCS.0000000000003857.
The aim of this meta-analysis was to evaluate the efficacy of the 2.0-mm locking miniplate system in comparison with the standard miniplate system in treatment of mandible fractures.
A systematic review was conducted according to PRISMA guidelines, examining Medline-Ovid, Embase, and PubMed databases, eligible studies were restricted to comparative controlled trials. Inclusion criteria were based on humans randomized controlled trials, controlled clinical trials, with the aim of comparing 2 fixation techniques, namely locking miniplate and standard miniplate (nonlocking miniplate) techniques. In addition, the incidence of complications was evaluated.
Nine studies with 380 patients and 551 fracture sites were enrolled into the analysis. The results showed that there were no significant differences in overall complications (odds ratio [OR], 0.64; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.34-1.22; P = 0.2), postoperative infection (OR, 0.53; 95% CI, 0.23-1.23, P = 0.15), and occlusion discrepancy (P > 0.05) when comparing 2.0-mm locking miniplates with 2.0-mm nonlocking miniplates in treating mandible fractures. However, the use of 2.0-mm locking miniplates had a lower postoperative maxillomandibular fixation rate than the use of 2.0-mm nonlocking miniplates (OR, 0.43; 95% CI, 0.22-0.83; P < 0.0001).
Mandible fractures treated with 2.0-mm locking miniplates and standard 2.0-mm miniplates present similar short-term complication rates, and the low postoperative maxillomandibular fixation rate of using 2.0-mm locking miniplates also indicates that the 2.0-mm locking miniplate has a promising application in treatment of mandibular fractures.
本荟萃分析旨在评估2.0毫米锁定微型钢板系统与标准微型钢板系统相比在治疗下颌骨骨折中的疗效。
根据PRISMA指南进行系统评价，检索Medline-Ovid、Embase和PubMed数据库，纳入的研究限于比较对照试验。纳入标准基于人类随机对照试验、对照临床试验，目的是比较两种固定技术，即锁定微型钢板和标准微型钢板（非锁定微型钢板）技术。此外，对并发症的发生率进行了评估。
9项研究共380例患者、551个骨折部位纳入分析。结果显示，在治疗下颌骨骨折时，比较2.0毫米锁定微型钢板和2.0毫米非锁定微型钢板，总体并发症（优势比[OR]，0.64；95%置信区间[CI]，0.34 - 1.22；P = 0.2）、术后感染（OR，0.53；95% CI，0.23 - 1.23，P = 0.15）和咬合差异（P > 0.05）方面均无显著差异。然而，使用2.0毫米锁定微型钢板的术后颌间固定率低于使用2.0毫米非锁定微型钢板（OR，0.43；95% CI，0.22 - 0.83；P < 0.0001）。
用2.0毫米锁定微型钢板和标准2.0毫米微型钢板治疗下颌骨骨折的短期并发症发生率相似，且使用2.0毫米锁定微型钢板术后颌间固定率低也表明2.0毫米锁定微型钢板在治疗下颌骨骨折方面具有良好的应用前景。
