A Prospective Randomized Study on Comparison of 2.0mm Non-Locking Titanium Plates versus Locking Titanium Plates (1.8mm and 2.3mm) System for Mandibular Fracture

Complications of locking and non-locking plate systems in mandibular fractures

“…In two studies, a 2.0-mm locking plate, and three-dimensional (3D) locking plate were compared with double 2.0-mm non-locking Plates 35,36 . Other studies 35,[37][38][39][40][41][42][43][44][45][46][47][48] compared various types of locking and non-locking plates (Tables 2 and 3). In two studies, locking plates, non-locking plates, lag screws and biodegradable plates were compared 28,45 .…”

“…In two studies 37,44 , only condylar fractures were treated and fixated with double plates in each. In the remaining seven studies 23,29,33,39,40,46 , the fixation principle was not reported.…”

“…Mandibular fractures concomitant with condylar fractures were included in eight studies, and in two 43,45 of them the condylar fractures were treated closed. In two studies 33,39 , the condylar fractures were treated with open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF), and four studies 13,23,28,41 did not report whether the condylar fractures were treated with ORIF or closed. In 10 studies [10][11][12]22,26,30,32,34,38,46 , condylar fractures were excluded and 10 studies 25,27,29,35,36,40,42,[47][48][49] did not report whether these fractures were included or not.…”

“…Conflict of interest was not reported in 12 studies 12,[25][26][27]32,33,37,39,41,42,46 . In 18 studies informed consent was reported 11,13,22,23,27,29,31,[35][36][37][38][43][44][45][48][49][50][51] .…”

“…In total, 16 studies were selected for the meta-analysis. Reasons for not being included in the meta-analysis were: comparison of different diameter plates n = 5 38,39,41,44,45 (e.g., 2.0-mm locking vs. 2.3-mm non-locking), comparison of different plate designs n = 8 35,37,40,42,43,48,50,51 (i.e. 3D vs. 2.0 mm), comparison of single and double plates n = 2 36,47 , identical study n = 1 23 and duplicated study n = 1 24 .…”