The most preferred method of management of displaced pediatric mandibular fracture: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND

There are diverse treatment modalities available for managing pediatric dentate mandibular fractures, ranging from various closed reduction techniques to open reduction methods. This systematic review and meta-analysis aim to evaluate the most appropriate and preferred management method for pediatric dentate mandibular fractures, focusing on outcomes such as wound infection and malocclusion.

METHODS

A systematic search was performed using the PubMed Central and Scopus databases from January 1980 to December 2022, following PRISMA guidelines. The inclusion criteria comprised case reports with more than 10 cases, clinical trials, and prospective and retrospective clinical studies addressing the management of displaced dentate-segment mandibular fractures in patients up to 15 years old using open and/or closed reduction techniques.

RESULTS

Six retrospective studies were included in the systematic review and meta-analysis. The primary outcomes assessed were wound infection and malocclusion. The pooled estimate for wound infection significantly favored the maxillomandibular fixation (MMF) group (p= 0.0007). In contrast, although the pooled estimate for malocclusion favored surgical treatment, the difference was not statistically significant (p= 0.86).

CONCLUSION

The risk of wound infection is significantly lower with MMF in pediatric mandibular fractures, while open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) using miniplates is associated with a relatively lower risk of malocclusion, although this difference is not statistically significant. The authors conclude that, based on reduced wound infection rates, MMF should be the preferred management approach, whereas ORIF should be reserved for severely displaced and comminuted fractures. Future randomized controlled trials with larger sample sizes are needed to validate and strengthen these findings.