LAUSR

PurposeThe study aimed to determine the superiority between 3-dimensional (3D) miniplate and standard miniplate for mandibular fractures (MFs) treatment.BackgroundControversial results on the use of standard miniplate and 3D miniplate have remained for management of MFs.MethodsSeveral electronic databases were retrieved up to September 2014 to identify eligible studies. The quality of studies was assessed, and the relative risk (RR) with its corresponding 95% confidence interval (CI) was assessed to measure the effect size. Subgroup analyses by different fracture regions and different 3D miniplate sizes were performed. Publication bias was measured by a funnel plot.ResultsThere were 13 studies included for the meta-analysis, consisting of 593 participants. The 3D miniplate achieved significant lower incidences of malocclusion (RR 0.43, 95% CI 0.24–0.77, P = 0.004) and hardware failure (RR 0.31, 95% CI 0.13–0.74, P = 0.008) than the standard miniplate. There were no significant differences between the two miniplates on the incidence of the remaining outcomes: wound dehiscence, infection, paresthesia, and nonunion/malunion. Subgroup analyses indicated that 3D miniplate caused a lower hardware failure than standard with the size of 8 or 10 holes (RR 0.23, 95% CI 0.08–0.66, P = 0.006). Besides, publication bias was not detected.ConclusionThe 3D miniplate is superior to the standard miniplate on the reduction of postoperative complication rates for the management of MFs. More holes in the 3D miniplate might contribute to a successful treatment.