Complications following miniplate insertion in maxillofacial fractures: a systematic review

Bramasto Purbo Sejati; Ahmad Kusumaatmaja; Maria Goreti Widiastuti; Tetiana Haniastuti

doi:10.12688/f1000research.159017.3

Home Browse Complications following miniplate insertion in maxillofacial fractures:...

ALL Metrics

Views

Downloads

Get PDF

Get XML

Export

▬

✚

Systematic Review

Revised

Complications following miniplate insertion in maxillofacial fractures: a systematic review

[version 3; peer review: 3 approved]

Bramasto Purbo Sejati^1,2, Ahmad Kusumaatmaja³, Maria Goreti Widiastuti¹, Tetiana Haniastuti⁴

PUBLISHED 06 Mar 2025

Author details Author details

¹ Departemnt of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Universitas Gadjah Mada, Yogyakarta, Special Region of Yogyakarta, 55284, Indonesia
² Doctoral Study Program, Faculty of Dentistry, Universitas Gadjah Mada, Yogyakarta, Special Region of Yogyakarta, 55284, Indonesia
³ Departement of Physics, Universitas Gadjah Mada, Yogyakarta, Special Region of Yogyakarta, 55284, Indonesia
⁴ Departement of Oral Biology, Universitas Gadjah Mada, Yogyakarta, Special Region of Yogyakarta, 55284, Indonesia

Bramasto Purbo Sejati
Roles: Conceptualization, Data Curation, Investigation, Methodology, Project Administration, Visualization, Writing – Original Draft Preparation

Ahmad Kusumaatmaja
Roles: Data Curation, Methodology, Software, Supervision, Validation

Maria Goreti Widiastuti
Roles: Supervision, Validation

Tetiana Haniastuti
Roles: Conceptualization, Project Administration, Supervision, Validation, Writing – Review & Editing

OPEN PEER REVIEW

REVIEWER STATUS

Abstract

Background

Maxillofacial fractures, frequently arising from road traffic incidents, falls, and acts of interpersonal aggression, are a considerable public health issue, exhibiting diverse epidemiological patterns according to demographic factors. The application of miniplates for fracture stabilization is a recognized technique, with innovative methods such as 3D plate systems emerging. Nonetheless, consequences including infections and hardware malfunctions persist. This systematic review seeks to present current evidence regarding the complications linked to miniplate placement in maxillofacial fractures over the last ten years.

Methods

A systematic review was performed in accordance with PRISMA principles. Databases such as the Cochrane Library, PubMed, and Scopus were examined from September 2014 to September 2024. Studies documenting problems related to miniplate placement were included, without language constraints. The ROBINS-I tool was utilized for non-randomized studies, whereas the Cochrane risk of bias tool was applied to randomized controlled trials.

Results

From 2,289 initially found studies, 56 satisfied the inclusion criteria. Among these, 28 employed interventional designs, whilst the remaining 28 were observational research. The predominant problems documented in several investigations encompassed infection, wound dehiscence, malocclusion, paraesthesia, malunion/non-union, segment movement, hardware failure, and palpable hardware. Advanced methodologies such as 3D plate systems and locking mechanisms were linked to diminished complication rates.

Conclusion

This systematic analysis presents a decade of updated research about problems associated with miniplate placement in maxillofacial fractures. Novel methodologies such as 3D plate systems and locking mechanisms demonstrate promise in mitigating problems relative to conventional techniques. These findings can facilitate informed decision-making in clinical practice. Additional study utilizing standardized outcomes and prospective designs is essential to enhance comprehension of the long-term effects of miniplate utilization.

Keywords

systematic review; miniplate; complications; maxillofacial fractures.

Corresponding author: Tetiana Haniastuti

Competing interests: No competing interests were disclosed.

Grant information: Center For Higher Education Funding and Indonesian Endowment Fund for Education

Copyright: © 2025 Sejati BP et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

How to cite: Sejati BP, Kusumaatmaja A, Widiastuti MG and Haniastuti T. Complications following miniplate insertion in maxillofacial fractures: a systematic review [version 3; peer review: 3 approved]. F1000Research 2025, 13:1507 (https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.159017.3) First published: 09 Dec 2024, 13:1507 (https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.159017.1) Latest published: 06 Mar 2025, 13:1507 (https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.159017.3)

Revised Amendments from Version 2

We updated the funding statement.

See the authors' detailed response to the review by Mohammad Adhitya Latief
See the authors' detailed response to the review by Indra Mulyawan
See the authors' detailed response to the review by Mohamed Jaber

Introduction

Maxillofacial fractures represent a considerable public health issue, frequently arising from road traffic accidents (RTAs), falls, and interpersonal violence, with RTAs being the primary cause in many countries, including Jordan and India.^1,2 The epidemiology of these fractures differs by demographics, exhibiting a greater occurrence in males, especially within the 21-30 age range.² In Germany, there is a discernible increase in the frequency of maxillofacial trauma procedures, underscoring the necessity for efficient surgical interventions.³ In low- and middle-income countries, enhancing surgeon training is essential for improving care and outcomes in cranio-maxillofacial injuries.⁴ A multidisciplinary approach is crucial for the proper management of these complicated injuries.

Miniplate insertion is widely used in surgery, particularly in orthodontics and fracture stabilization. The insertion procedure generally requires 25 to 30 minutes, with research indicating an overall success rate of 95.5% for miniplates utilized in orthodontic treatments.⁵ The stability of these miniplates is greatly affected by the quality and amount of cortical bone at the insertion site, rendering them advantageous in regions with restricted bone availability.⁶ Three-dimensional imaging has improved miniplate placement accuracy, leading to better surgical outcomes and reduced operation time.⁶ Miniplate fixation is a dependable technique for establishing solid skeletal anchoring and promoting healing.^5,7

The available literature reveals a research gap concerning problems associated with miniplate implantation in craniofacial and orthognathic operations, indicating a necessity for more comprehensive studies. Systematic reviews highlight complications such as infections, plate exposure, and removal preference, with reported complication rates varying up to 32.5%.⁸ The average removal time is variable, spanning from 5.5 to 10.7 months, which suggests the absence of defined monitoring techniques.⁹ Most studies are retrospective, limiting conclusions on long-term outcomes and risk factors of miniplate use.⁹ This highlights the need for future research with more substantial, prospective cohorts and standardized outcome measures to further understanding of the implications of miniplate insertion and related problems in clinical practice.¹⁰

This systematic review updates evidence on complications of miniplate insertion in maxillofacial fractures. Additionally, the results of this study could benefit healthcare practitioners and patients in making an informed decision regarding the applicability and potential complications.

Methods

Data Sources and Searches

This systematic review was performed based on PRISMA guidelines on systemic reviews and meta-analyzes (PROSPERO: CRD42024612052).¹¹ The Cochrane Library, PubMed, and Scopus were examined from September 1, 2014, to September 1, 2024. We implement a decade-long trend to guarantee the innovative technique. We utilize the keyword combinations as follows: miniplate AND complications AND maxillofacial. Table 1 delineated a combination of various search techniques. Furthermore, relevant papers that satisfied the inclusion criteria were manually identified within each retrieved study.

Table 1. Search strategy.

Database	Keywords
PubMed	(“miniplate”[All Fields] OR “miniplates”[All Fields] OR “miniplating”[All Fields]) AND (“complicances”[All Fields] OR “complicate”[All Fields] OR “complicated”[All Fields] OR “complicates”[All Fields] OR “complicating”[All Fields] OR “complication”[All Fields] OR “complication s”[All Fields] OR “complications”[MeSH Subheading] OR “complications”[All Fields]) AND “maxillofacial”[All Fields]
Scopus	(ALL (miniplate) AND ALL (complications) AND ALL (maxillofacial))
Cochrane Library	miniplate AND complications AND maxillofacial

Study Selection

We included a comprehensive original study detailing the complications associated with miniplate placement in maxillofacial fractures. No linguistic constraints were imposed. Studies were considered irrespective of the languages utilized, provided that English translations were accessible. Two reviewers (B.P.S. and A.K.) conducted separate evaluations of the titles and abstracts of possibly qualifying articles. All differences were deliberated with the third investigator (T.H).

Data Extraction

Two independent assessors (B.P.S. and A.K.) extracted data and resolved discrepancies. We incorporated the subsequent data: 1) Attributes of the included studies (e.g., first author’s name and publication year); 2) demographic attributes of the patient population (e.g., age, male percentage, and participant count in each group); 3) intervention attributes (e.g., type); and 4) outcomes. Disputes were settled by dialogue with the corresponding author (T.H.) until a consensus was achieved.

Descriptions of outcome Measures

The reported outcome was complications following miniplate insertion in maxillofacial fractures. We endeavored to reach the original authors to acquire further or missing information through email.

Risk of Bias Assessment

The quality of the included studies was evaluated according to the criteria outlined in the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions.¹² The Cochrane risk of bias assessment was utilized for the randomized control trials.¹³ We evaluated the risk of bias in non-randomized studies utilizing the checklist for prevalence studies.¹⁴ All studies were evaluated by two independent reviewers (B.P.S. and A.K.). All disputes have been resolved during the consensus meeting.

Data Synthesis and Analysis

This systematic review emphasizes the synthesis and analysis of data to summarize and interpret findings from individual studies. The review initially delineates attributes, including design, sample size, interventions, and outcomes. The synthesis entails a critical evaluation of the research’ quality, addressing methodological rigor and identifying any biases or limitations.

Results

Search Result

Figure 1 illustrates the electronic search procedure. We initially detected 2,289 articles. Of these, 2,196 duplicate papers or irrelevant studies were eliminated. Ninety-one papers were identified for additional investigation. Thirty-seven research were omitted from this list due to insufficient relevant data (Appendix Table 1). Two additional papers were acquired: one from a prior literature review and the other from a website search. We incorporated a total of 56 studies that fulfilled the inclusion criteria.^15–70

Figure 1. PRISMA flow diagram.

Study Characteristics

The attributes of the studies included have been captured in Table 2. Out of 56 investigations, 28 utilized an interventional design, including randomized controlled trials (RCTs), whereas the other 28 were observational studies, comprising cohort designs. India was the most prevalent country of study origin. This distribution represents a balance between experimental and observational research methodologies within the dataset, offering a comprehensive foundation for analyzing the investigated phenomena.

The majority of research contrasted conventional miniplate types with innovative methods, including 3D plate systems. Additionally, several studies investigated the effectiveness of locking compared to non-locking strategies in similar interventions. The most commonly reported complications included infection, wound dehiscence, malocclusion, paraesthesia, malunion/non-union, segment movement, hardware failure, and palpable hardware. These results underscore the variety of potential complications linked to the use of miniplates in clinical practice. Other details of results is provided in Table 2 extended data.

Risk of Bias Assessment of Included Studies

Result of risk of bias assessment were described in Table 3 for RCTs studies. Twelve and ten studies addressed concerns about sufficient randomization and incomplete outcome data. five studies used adequate concealment of allocation. Participants and personnel in four studies were blind to treatment assignment, while assessors were unaware in four studies.

Table 3. Risk of bias RoB 1.0.

No.	First Authors, year	Random sequence generation	Allocation concealment	Blinding of participants and personnel	Blinding of outcome assessment	Incomplete outcome data addressed
1	Adhikari, 2021	L	U	U	U	L
2	Agarwal, 2014	U	U	U	U	U
3	Agnihotri, 2014	L	U	U	U	U
4	Al-Moraissi, 2015	L	L	L	L	L
5	Camino Junior, 2017	L	U	U	U	L
6	Kanubaddy, 2016	L	U	U	U	L
7	Kumar, 2023	L	L	L	L	L
8	Mannan, 2018	L	L	L	L	U
9	Mathew, 2022	L	U	U	U	L
10	Rai, 2018	L	U	U	U	L
11	Sehgal, 2014	L	L	L	L	L
12	Tiwari, 2019	L	U	U	U	L
13	Yang, 2015	L	L	U	U	L

The quality assessment of risk of bias for non-randomized studies can be seen in Table 4. overall studies yielded low risk of bias.

Table 4. Risk of bias checklist for prevalence studies.

No.	First Authors, year	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9
1	Aggarwal, 2017	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y
2	Amjad, 2020	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y
3	Bhagat, 2021	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y
4	Bhatt, 2015	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y
5	Bohner, 2020	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y
6	Burkhard, 2020	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y
7	Carricondo, 2018	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y
8	Daif, 2014	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y
9	Dediol, 2014	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y
10	Fani, 2020	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y
11	Ferrari, 2018	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y
12	Fernandes, 2022	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y
13	Gamit, 2024	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y
14	Ghezta, 2016	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y
15	Graillon, 2021	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y
16	Kaushik, 2020	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y
17	Kerdoud, 2021	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y
18	Khan, 2020	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y
19	Khandelwal, 2019	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y
20	Kreutzer. 2023	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y
21	Mishra, 2019	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y
22	Mondal, 2019	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y
23	Palani, 2021	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y
24	Pfister, 2024	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y
25	Rahpeyma, 2014	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y
26	Rai, 2021	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y
27	Ribeiro-Junior, 2018	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y
28	Rohit, 2019	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y
29	Saha, 2015	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y
30	Sakong, 2021	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y
31	Sarepally, 2022	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y
32	Shaik, 2014	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y
33	Sikora, 2020	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y
34	Singh, 2016	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y
35	Singh, 2020a	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y
36	Singh, 2020b	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y
37	Spinelli, 2016	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y
38	Sukegawa, 2019a	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y
39	Sukegawa, 2019b	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y
40	Sukegawa, 2020	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y
41	Sweta, 2022	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y
42	Vashistha, 2017	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y
43	Yadav, 2020	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y

Discussion

This systematic review presents updated ten-year evidence about complications associated with miniplate insertion in maxillofacial fractures. The results of our study may assist healthcare practitioners and patients in making informed decisions about the applicability and potential difficulties associated with miniplate deployment. This study employed a rigorous methodology, ensuring high-confidence findings.

Infection is a notable problem subsequent to the placement of miniplates in maxillofacial surgery. Consistent with prior research, the overall infection rate linked to miniplates is roughly 13.3%, which is the primary reason for their removal, representing about 2.9% of cases in one meta-analysis.^9,71 A study on orthodontic anchorage miniplates revealed that 17.3% of the placed miniplates developed infections, influenced significantly by the proximity to the mucogingival junction and the frequency of dental hygiene.⁷² In addition, one study reported the microbiological research indicated that Staphylococcus aureus was the primary pathogen at infected locations, underscoring the necessity for regular microbial evaluations to inform therapy.⁷³ These findings highlight the necessity of monitoring and mitigating infection risks associated with miniplate utilization.

The utilization of 3D miniplates in managing mandibular fractures has been associated to a reduced incidence of complications relative to traditional systems. Studies demonstrate that 3D miniplates enhance stability and diminish operational duration, resulting in superior intraoperative results and markedly fewer problems, including enhanced biting force and fracture stability.⁷⁴ A retrospective investigation of 336 patients indicated that merely 8.03% encountered minor problems, whereas significant difficulties arose in only 1.49% of instances.⁷⁵ A study on patient-specific 3D-printed miniplates exhibited exceptional precision in fixing and effective osseous union, devoid of material fractures or plate exposure.⁷⁶ The adaptability and effectiveness of 3D miniplates enhance their successful application in the treatment of mandibular fractures, underscoring their advantages compared to conventional techniques.⁷⁷

Several limitations must be acknowledged. First, a meta-analysis was not performed owing to the heterogeneity of the included studies. Secondly, the patient demographics and treatment durations differed among research, highlighting the necessity for meticulous evaluation when selecting protocols to pay attention to. Third, we include less prospective study. The evaluation encompasses a decade-long range to concentrate on the most recent methodologies in this field of research.

Conclusion and implications

This study’s findings indicate that the majority of research has concentrated on contrasting conventional miniplate types with more advanced ways, such as 3D plate systems, while also assessing the efficacy of locking versus non-locking procedures. The extensive range of documented complications—such as infection, wound dehiscence, malocclusion, paraesthesia, malunion or non-union, segment movement, hardware failure, and palpable hardware—illustrates the clinical difficulties associated with miniplate implantation. Careful selection of miniplate technology and surgical techniques is crucial for minimizing complications and improving outcomes.

Author contributions

Conceived and designed the experiments: BPS TH. Analyzed the data: BPS AK. Wrote the paper: BPS TH. Designed search strategies: BPS AK TH. Critically reviewed the manuscript for important intellectual content: BPS AK MGW TH. Read and approved the final version: BPS AK MGW TH. Guarantors: BPS TH.

Ethics and consent

Ethical approval and consent were not required.

Data availability

Underlying data- No data are associated with this article.

Extended Data

Zenodo: Supplementary data, 10.5281/zenodo.14064447.⁷⁸

This project contains the following underlying data:

1. Reporting guidelines, PRISMA checklist
2. Appendix Table 1. List of the excluded studies

Data are available under the terms of the Creative Commons Zero “No rights reserved” data waiver (Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International).

Zenodo: Characteristics of included studies, 10.5281/zenodo.14207706.⁷⁹

This project contains the following underlying data:

• Table 2 Characteristics of included studies

Data are available under the terms of the Creative Commons Zero “No rights reserved” data waiver (Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International).

Acknowledgement

The authors declare no potential conflicts of interest regarding the authorship and publication of this article. This manuscript was supported by the funding from:

1. BPI (Indonesian Education Scholarship)
2. Pusat Pelayanan Pembiayaan dan Asesmen Pendidkan Tinggi (Center for Higher Education Funding and Assessment Ministry of Higher Education, Science, and Technology of Republic Indonesia)
3. LPDP (Indonesia Endowment Fund for Education)

References

1. Shukla AD: Epidemiology of maxillofacial injuries during monsoon and non-monsoon season in India: a data-based retrospective study from a tertiary care dental teaching hospital. F1000Res. 2023; 12. Publisher Full Text
2. Bataineh AB: The incidence and patterns of maxillofacial fractures and associated head and neck injuries. J. Craniofac. Surg. 2024; 52(5): 543–547.
3. Meisgeier A: Epidemiologic Trends in Maxillofacial Trauma Surgery in Germany—Insights from the National DRG Database 2005–2022. J. Clin. Med. 2024; 13(15). PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
4. Deininger C: Enhancing Cranio-Maxillofacial Fracture Care in Low-and Middle-Income Countries: A Systematic Review. J. Clin. Med. 2024; 13(8): 2437. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
5. Chen C-H: The use of miniplate osteosynthesis for skeletal anchorage. Plast. Reconstr. Surg. 2007; 120(1): 232–235. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
6. Hourfar J, Kanavakis G, Goellner P, et al.: Fully customized placement of orthodontic miniplates: a novel clinical technique. Head Face Med. 2014; 10: 1–7. Publisher Full Text
7. Kang N, Pratt A, Burr N: Miniplate fixation for avulsion injuries of the flexor digitorum profundus insertion. J. Hand Surg. 2003; 28(4): 363–368. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
8. Sobti N: Mini-plate versus reconstruction bar fixation for oncologic mandibular reconstruction with free fibula flaps: A systematic review and meta-analysis. J. Plast. Reconstr. Aesthet. Surg. 2022; 75(8): 2691–2701. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
9. Jaber M: Reasons for removal of miniplates used in fixation of maxillofacial bone fractures: systematic review and meta-analysis. Appl. Sci. 2023; 13(21): 11899. Publisher Full Text
10. Kuna SK, Jain A, Kuna V: Two Miniplates Versus Three Dimensional Plate in Management of Mandibular Condylar Fractures: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Craniomaxillofac. Trauma Reconstr. 2024; 19433875241252979. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
11. Maraolo AE: Una bussola per le revisioni sistematiche: la versione italiana della nuova edizione del PRISMA statement. BMJ. 2021; 372: n71.
12. Higgins JP: Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions. John Wiley & Sons; 2019.
13. Higgins JP: Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions version 5.0. 1. The Cochrane Collaboration.Reference Source2008.
14. Munn Z: Systematic reviews of prevalence and incidence. Joanna Briggs Institute reviewer’s manual Adelaide, South Australia: The Joanna Briggs Institute. 2017; 5: 1–5.
15. Adhikari M: Fixation of subcondylar fractures of the mandible: a randomized clinical trial comparing one trapezoidal plate with two miniplates. Int. J. Oral Maxillofac. Surg. 2021; 50(6): 756–762. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
16. Agarwal M: A Prospective Randomized Clinical Trial Comparing 3D and Standard Miniplates in Treatment of Mandibular Symphysis and Parasymphysis Fractures. Journal of Maxillofacial and Oral Surgery. 2014; 13(2): 79–83. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
17. Aggarwal S: Comparison of 3D plate and locking plate in treatment of mandibular fracture-a clinical study. Oral Maxillofac. Surg. 2017; 21(4): 383–390. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
18. Agnihotri A, Prabhu S, Thomas S: A comparative analysis of the efficacy of cortical screws as lag screws and miniplates for internal fixation of mandibular symphyseal region fractures: A randomized prospective study. Int. J. Oral Maxillofac. Surg. 2014; 43(1): 22–28. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
19. Al-Moraissi EA, Mounair RM, El-Sharkawy TM, et al.: Comparison between three-dimensional and standard miniplates in the management of mandibular angle fractures: A prospective, randomized, double-blind, controlled clinical study. Int. J. Oral Maxillofac. Surg. 2015; 44(3): 316–321. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
20. Amjad S, Ansari MDK, Ahmad SS, et al.: Comparative study of outcomes between locking plates and three-dimensional plates in mandibular fractures. National Journal of Maxillofacial Surgery. 2020; 11(2): 263–269. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
21. Bhadauria Fernandes T, Dhupar V, Akkara F, et al.: Efficiency of the 2-mm Titanium Lambda Plate for Open Reduction and Internal Fixation of Subcondylar Fractures of the Mandible: A Prospective Clinical Study. Journal of Maxillofacial and Oral Surgery. 2022; 21(2): 379–385. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
22. Bhagat MJA: Application of Anatomically Designed 2-Dimensional V Plate in Management of Mandible Fracture: A Pilot Study. Journal of Maxillofacial and Oral Surgery. 2022; 21(4): 1363–1368. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
23. Bhatt K: Retrospective study of mandibular angle fractures treated with three different fixation systems. Natl J Maxillofac Surg. 2015; 6(1): 31–36. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
24. Bohner L: Treatment of Mandible Fractures Using a Miniplate System: A Retrospective Analysis. J. Clin. Med. 2020; 9(9). PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
25. Burkhard JPM: Clinical results of two different three-dimensional titanium plates in the treatment of condylar neck and base fractures: A retrospective study. J. Craniofac. Surg. 2020; 48(8): 756–764. Publisher Full Text
26. Camino Junior R, Moraes RB, Landes C, et al.: Comparison of a 2.0-mm locking system with conventional 2.0- and 2.4-mm systems in the treatment of mandibular fractures: a randomized controlled trial. Oral Maxillofac. Surg. 2017; 21(3): 327–334. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
27. Daif ET: Correlation of plates’ number with complications of osteosynthesis in mandibular fractures. J. Craniofac. Surg. 2014; 25(6): e526–e529. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
28. Dediol E, Čvrljević I, Dobranić M, et al.: Comparative study between lag screw and miniplate fixation for straight midline mandibular osteotomy. Int. J. Oral Maxillofac. Surg. 2014; 43(4): 399–404. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
29. Fani M: Is mini-plate removal necessary for oral and maxillofacial surgery patients? A five-year case-control study. Frontiers in Dentistry. 2020; 17. Publisher Full Text
30. Ferrari R: Complication rate in mandibular angle fractures—one vs. two plates: a 12-year retrospective analysis. Oral Maxillofac. Surg. 2018; 22(4): 435–441. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
31. Gamit M: Comparison of bite force evaluation for mandibular angle fracture fixation by conventional miniplates versus new design miniplates: a clinical study. Oral Maxillofac. Surg. 2024; 28(2): 645–652. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
32. García Carricondo AR: A comparative study between traditional fixation with miniplates and modified lag screws for the treatment of mandibular fractures. Clin. Oral Investig. 2018; 22(3): 1503–1511. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
33. Ghezta NK, Bhardwaj Y, Rani P, et al.: Efficacy of Retromandibular Transparotid Approach for the Management of Extracapsular Subcondylar Mandibular Fractures Using 2-mm Titanium Miniplates: A Prospective Clinical Study. J. Oral Maxillofac. Surg. 2016; 74(8): 1613–1621. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
34. Graillon N: Do mandibular miniplates increase the risk of complex fracture in facial trauma recurrence? Case series. J. Craniofac. Surg. 2021; 49(7): 613–619.
35. Kanubaddy SR: Management of Mandibular Angle Fractures: Single Stainless Steel Linear Miniplate Versus Rectangular Grid Plate—A Prospective Randomised Study. Journal of Maxillofacial and Oral Surgery. 2016; 15(4): 535–541. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
36. Kaushik S, Ali I, Dubey M, et al.: 2 mm conventional miniplates with three-dimensional strut plate in mandibular fractures. Annals of Maxillofacial Surgery. 2020; 10(1): 10–15. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
37. Kerdoud O, Aloua R, Kaouani A, et al.: Management of mandibular angle fractures through single and two mini-plate fixation systems: Retrospective study of 112 cases. Int. J. Surg. Case Rep. 2021; 80: 105690. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
38. Khan M: Comparative Evaluation of 3d Locking Versus Non-Locking Titanium Miniplates in the Treatment of Mandibular Fracture. Indian J. Otolaryngol. Head Neck Surg. 2020; 72(3): 363–369. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
39. Khandelwal P: Miniplate removal in operated cases of maxillofacial region in a dental institute in Rajasthan, India. Medicine and Pharmacy Reports. 2019; 92(4): 393–400. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
40. Kreutzer K: Patient-specific 3D-printed mini-versus reconstruction plates for free flap fixation at the mandible: Retrospective study of clinical outcomes and complication rates. J. Craniofac. Surg. 2023; 51(10): 621–628. Publisher Full Text
41. Kumar S: Treatment Outcome Comparison Between two 3-Dimensional Plates (Y-Shaped Plate Versus Trapezoidal Condylar Plate) in Management of Mandible Condylar Fracture: A Randomized Control Trial. Journal of Maxillofacial and Oral Surgery. 2023; 22(1): 25–32. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
42. Mannan R, Farooq A, Mukhtar H: Comparison of single vs double miniplates in the management of mandibular angle fractures. Pakistan Journal of Medical and Health Sciences. 2018; 12(2): 662–664.
43. Mathew N: The Efficacy of Fixation of Unilateral Mandibular Angle Fracture with Single 3D Plate vs Single Miniplate Using Transbuccal Approach. Journal of Maxillofacial and Oral Surgery. 2022; 21(2): 405–412. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
44. Mishra N: 3-D Miniplates Versus Conventional Miniplates in Treatment of Mandible Fractures. Journal of Maxillofacial and Oral Surgery. 2019; 18(1): 65–72. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
45. Mondal S: Comparative Evaluation between Single Noncompression Miniplate and Two Noncompression Miniplates in the Treatment of Mandibular Angle Fractures. Craniomaxillofac. Trauma Reconstr. 2019; 12(2): 122–127. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
46. Pfister J, Shazwani FN, Müller M, et al.: Clinical results of two different three-dimensional plate types for the treatment of mandibular angle fractures: a retrospective analysis. Oral Maxillofac. Surg. 2024; 28: 1501–1507. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
47. Rahpeyma A, Khajehahmadi S, Barkhori Mehni S: Treatment of mandibular fractures by two perpendicular mini-plates. Iran J Otorhinolaryngol. 2014; 26(74): 31–36. PubMed Abstract
48. Rai A, Jain A, Datarkar A: Comparison of single versus two non-compression miniplates in the management of unfavourable angle fracture of the mandible: a prospective randomized clinical study. Oral Maxillofac. Surg. 2018; 22(2): 157–161. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
49. Rai A, Jain A, Thukral R: Two miniplates versus 3-dimensional plate in the management of mandibular subcondylar fractures: a retrospective analysis. Oral Maxillofac. Surg. 2021; 25(4): 457–461. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
50. Ribeiro-Junior PD: Mandibular angle fractures treated with a single miniplate without postoperative maxillomandibular fixation: A retrospective evaluation of 50 patients. Cranio - Journal of Craniomandibular Practice. 2018; 36(4): 234–242. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
51. Saha R: A comparison between locking plates and miniplates in fixation of mandibular fractures. Biomedical and Pharmacology Journal. 2015; 8: 799–804. Publisher Full Text
52. Sakong Y, Kim YH, Chung KJ: Analysis of Complication in Mandibular Angle Fracture: Champy Technique Versus Rigid Fixation. J. Craniofac. Surg. 2021; 32(8): 2732–2735. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
53. Sarepally G: A Comparative Evaluation of 2.0mm Two-Dimensional Miniplates Versus 2.0mm Three-Dimensional Miniplates in Mandibular Fractures. Cureus. 2022; 14(1): e21325. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
54. Sehgal S, Ramanujam L, Prasad K, et al.: Three-dimensional v/s standard titanium miniplate fixation in the management of mandibular fractures - A randomized clinical study. J. Craniofac. Surg. 2014; 42(7): 1292–1299.
55. Shaik M, Subba Raju T, Rao NK, et al.: Effectiveness of 2.0 mm Standard and 2.0 mm Locking Miniplates in Management of Mandibular Fractures: A Clinical Comparative Study. Journal of Maxillofacial and Oral Surgery. 2014; 13(1): 47–52. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
56. Sikora M, Chęciński M, Sielski M, et al.: The use of 3d titanium miniplates in surgical treatment of patients with condylar fractures. J. Clin. Med. 2020; 9(9): 1–13.
57. Singh A, Arunkumar KV: Standard 3D Titanium Miniplate Versus Locking 3D Miniplate in Fracture of Mandible: A Prospective Comparative Study. Journal of Maxillofacial and Oral Surgery. 2016; 15(2): 164–172. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
58. Singh R: Comparative evaluation of 2D miniplates and 3D miniplates fixation in mandibular angle fracture - A clinical study. Indian J. Dent. Res. 2020; 31(1): 134–137. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
59. Singh R: A comparative assessment of the management of mandibular angle fractures using 3D plates and 2D mini plates. J. Contemp. Dent. Pract. 2020; 21(4): 400–403. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
60. Spinelli G: Management of Mandibular Angle Fractures by Two Conventional 2.0-mm Miniplates: A Retrospective Study of 389 Patients. Craniomaxillofac. Trauma Reconstr. 2016; 9(3): 206–210. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
61. Sukegawa S: Which fixation methods are better between three-dimensional anatomical plate and two miniplates for the mandibular subcondylar fracture open treatment? J. Craniofac. Surg. 2019; 47(5): 771–777. Publisher Full Text
62. Sukegawa S: A retrospective comparative study of mandibular fracture treatment with internal fixation using reconstruction plate versus miniplates. J. Craniofac. Surg. 2019; 47(8): 1175–1180.
63. Sukegawa S: Maxillofacial Trauma Surgery Patients With Titanium Osteosynthesis Miniplates: Remove or Not? J. Craniofac. Surg. 2020; 31(5): 1338–1342. Publisher Full Text
64. Sweta S: Efficacy of Locking Miniplates in Managing Mandibular Fractures without Intermaxillary Fixation. J. Pharm. Bioallied Sci. 2022; 14(Suppl 1): S131–s134. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
65. Tiwari M, Meshram V, Lambade P, et al.: Titanium Lag Screw Versus Miniplate Fixation in the Treatment of Anterior Mandibular Fractures. J. Oral Maxillofac. Surg. 2019; 77(5): 1031–1039. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
66. Vishal: Significance of Microbial Analysis during Removal of Miniplates at Infected Sites in the Craniomaxillofacial Region - An Evaluative Study. Ann Maxillofac Surg. 2020; 10(2): 330–334. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
67. Yadav S: Conventional 2D miniplate versus 3D four-holed and eight-holed miniplates in the management of mandibular angle fractures. Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Medicine, and Pathology. 2020; 32(5): 336–341. Publisher Full Text
68. Yang L, Patil PM: Comparative evaluation of 2.0 mm locking plate system vs 2.0 mm non-locking plate system for mandibular angle fracture fixation: A prospective randomized study. Eur. Rev. Med. Pharmacol. Sci. 2015; 19(4): 552–556. PubMed Abstract
69. Palani T: Evaluation of 3D trapezoidal plates in open reduction and internal fixation of subcondylar fractures of mandible: a clinical trial. Cureus. 2021; 13(6). Publisher Full Text
70. Vashistha A: Comparison of 2 mm single locking miniplates versus 2 mm two non-locking miniplates in symphysis and parasymphysis fracture of mandible. journal of oral biology and craniofacial research. 2017; 7(1): 42–48. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
71. Jaber M, Abouseif N, Hassan M, et al.: Risk Factors Contributing to Symptomatic Miniplate Removal following Orthognathic Surgery: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. J. Clin. Med. 2024; 13(11): 3335. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
72. Faber J, et al.: Infection predictive factors with orthodontic anchorage miniplates. Seminars in Orthodontics. Elsevier; 2018.
73. Prajapati V, Shahi AK, Prakash O: Significance of microbial analysis during removal of miniplates at infected sites in the craniomaxillofacial region-an evaluative study. Annals of Maxillofacial Surgery. 2020; 10(2): 330–334. Publisher Full Text
74. Bhatt V, Motiwale T, Mitra GV: Evaluation of the efficacy of Three-dimensional mini plates versus conventional mini plates used in the management of anterior mandibular fractures. IP Indian Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Research. 2023; 8(3): 198–208. Publisher Full Text
75. Bohner L: Treatment of mandible fractures using a miniplate system: A retrospective analysis. J. Clin. Med. 2020; 9(09): 2922. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
76. Kreutzer K: Patient-specific 3D-printed miniplates for free flap fixation at the mandible: A feasibility study. Front. Surg. 2022; 9: 778371. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
77. Sadhwani BS, Khokhar M: Versatility of various 3D non locking miniplates in treatment of mandibular fractures. International Journal of Orthopaedics. 2022; 8(3): 85–87.
78. Adhyastha: Supplementary Data. Zenodo. 11 Nov. 2024.
79. adhyastha: characteristics of included study. [Data set]. Zenodo. 2024. Publisher Full Text

Comments on this article Comments (0)

Version 3

VERSION 3 PUBLISHED 09 Dec 2024

Author details Author details

Bramasto Purbo Sejati
Roles: Conceptualization, Data Curation, Investigation, Methodology, Project Administration, Visualization, Writing – Original Draft Preparation

Ahmad Kusumaatmaja
Roles: Data Curation, Methodology, Software, Supervision, Validation

Maria Goreti Widiastuti
Roles: Supervision, Validation

Tetiana Haniastuti
Roles: Conceptualization, Project Administration, Supervision, Validation, Writing – Review & Editing

Competing interests

No competing interests were disclosed.

Grant information

Center For Higher Education Funding and Indonesian Endowment Fund for Education

Article Versions (3)

version 3

Revised

Published: 06 Mar 2025, 13:1507

https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.159017.3

version 2

Revised

Published: 25 Feb 2025, 13:1507

https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.159017.2

version 1

Published: 09 Dec 2024, 13:1507

https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.159017.1

© 2025 Sejati BP et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Download

Export To

metrics

	Views	Downloads
F1000Research	-	-
PubMed Central Data from PMC are received and updated monthly.	-	-

Citations

SEE MORE DETAILS

CITE

how to cite this article

Sejati BP, Kusumaatmaja A, Widiastuti MG and Haniastuti T. Complications following miniplate insertion in maxillofacial fractures: a systematic review [version 3; peer review: 3 approved]. F1000Research 2025, 13:1507 (https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.159017.3)

NOTE: If applicable, it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article.

track

receive updates on this article

Track an article to receive email alerts on any updates to this article.

Open Peer Review

Current Reviewer Status: ?

Key to Reviewer Statuses VIEW HIDE

ApprovedThe paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested

Approved with reservations A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit.

Not approvedFundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions

Version 2

VERSION 2

PUBLISHED 25 Feb 2025

Revised

Views

Reviewer Report 03 Mar 2025

Mohammad Adhitya Latief, University of Indonesia, Depok, West Java, Indonesia

Approved

https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.178440.r368385

CITE

Report a concern

Respond or Comment

Views

Reviewer Report 26 Feb 2025

Mohamed Jaber, Ajman University, Ajman, United Arab Emirates

Approved

https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.178440.r368384

I reviewed the modified version of the manuscript, the authors incorporated all my ... Continue reading

CITE

Report a concern

Respond or Comment

Version 1

VERSION 1

PUBLISHED 09 Dec 2024

Views

Reviewer Report 14 Feb 2025

Indra Mulyawan, Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Airlangga University, Surabaya, East Java, Indonesia

Approved

https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.174686.r348231

This article is quite good and complete, has met the requirements of a good article, only needs to be sharpened in the background regarding the intent and direction of the purpose of this research. only a few articles reviewed are confirmed to be in accordance with the theme of the article.
Just need to provides more references to have a strength reason why we have to use the miniplate, how the best way to use the miniplates and also how to take care the complications. It is very useful for an oral maxillofacial surgeon to decide the best therapy in maxillofacial fractures.

Are the rationale for, and objectives of, the Systematic Review clearly stated?

Yes
Are sufficient details of the methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others?

Yes
Is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate?

Yes
Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results presented in the review?

Yes
If this is a Living Systematic Review, is the ‘living’ method appropriate and is the search schedule clearly defined and justified? (‘Living Systematic Review’ or a variation of this term should be included in the title.)

Yes

Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed.

Reviewer Expertise: oral and maxillofacial surgery

I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard.

CITE

Report a concern

Author Response 19 Feb 2025

bramasto purbo sejati, Departemnt of Oral and maxillofacial Surgery, Universitas Gadjah Mada, Yogyakarta, 55284, Indonesia

19 Feb 2025

Author Response

Response: Thank you for review and acknowledgement.
Competing Interests: none
Response: Thank you for review and acknowledgement.
Response: Thank you for review and acknowledgement.
Competing Interests: none Close
Report a concern
Respond or Comment

COMMENTS ON THIS REPORT

Author Response 19 Feb 2025

bramasto purbo sejati, Departemnt of Oral and maxillofacial Surgery, Universitas Gadjah Mada, Yogyakarta, 55284, Indonesia

19 Feb 2025

Author Response

Response: Thank you for review and acknowledgement.
Competing Interests: none
Response: Thank you for review and acknowledgement.
Response: Thank you for review and acknowledgement.
Competing Interests: none Close
Report a concern

Views

Reviewer Report 22 Jan 2025

Mohammad Adhitya Latief, University of Indonesia, Depok, West Java, Indonesia

Approved with Reservations

https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.174686.r348230

Power:

Comprehensive Review: The paper systematically reviews complications associated with miniplate insertion in maxillofacial fractures over a decade, providing a broad and updated perspective, as mention on methods that data examined from September 1, 2014, to

Power:

Comprehensive Review: The paper systematically reviews complications associated with miniplate insertion in maxillofacial fractures over a decade, providing a broad and updated perspective, as mention on methods that data examined from September 1, 2014, to September 1, 2024.
Diverse Data Sources: It utilizes multiple databases (Cochrane Library, PubMed, Scopus) and includes studies without language constraints, ensuring a wide range of data as mentioned in methods section, data source and searches.
Methodological Rigor: The review follows PRISMA guidelines and employs robust tools (ROBINS-I, Cochrane risk of bias tool) for assessing study quality, enhancing the reliability of findings.
Balanced Study Designs: The inclusion of both interventional and observational studies offers a comprehensive analysis of the phenomena. This distribution represents a balance between experimental and observational research methodologies within the dataset, offering a comprehensive foundation for analyzing the investigated phenomena.
Focus on Novel Techniques: The paper highlights advanced methodologies like 3D plate systems and locking mechanisms, which show promise in reducing complications.

Weakness:

Heterogeneity: The included studies exhibit significant variability in patient demographics, treatment durations, and methodologies, which limits the ability to perform a meta-analysis. One of the example is decision to include the use of miniplate in orthognatic surgery, Because the title is focussing in complication of miniplate in maxillofacial fractures, but the samples used in this research also include miniplate in orthognatic surgery which is very different in outcomes or surgery result.
Lack of Standardization: The absence of standardized outcome measures across studies makes it challenging to compare results directly. Although I cant find table 2 as result in the article, I could tell that it is challenging since there will be differences outcome because the different usage in fracture cases and orthognatic cases
Limited Prospective Data: There is a need for more prospective studies to better understand the long-term effects of miniplate utilization. As mention in article that Additional study utilizing standardized outcomes and prospective designs is essential to enhance comprehension of the long-term effects of miniplate utilization
Potential Bias: Despite using robust tools, the risk of bias in some studies remains unclear, which could affect the overall conclusions. We might correct this by using statistic to eliminate any factor that has potential bias, but unfortunately I cant find any of them in this article.

Overall, the paper provides valuable insights but also highlights the need for more standardized and prospective research to fully understand the implications of miniplate insertion in maxillofacial fractures. However, In my opinion the article provides a comprehensive exploration of the role and applications of miniplates in craniofacial surgery and Oral and maxillofacial field procedures. It delves into their potential complications, offering insights into their effectiveness in stabilizing fractures, facilitating orthodontic surgery, and supporting reconstructive surgeries. This article broadens our understanding of miniplate application, guiding clinicians in selecting appropriate systems and optimizing outcomes. By addressing both benefits and limitations, it serves as a valuable resource for advancing knowledge in the field and improving patient care.

Are the rationale for, and objectives of, the Systematic Review clearly stated?

Partly
Are sufficient details of the methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others?

No
Is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate?

No
Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results presented in the review?

Partly
If this is a Living Systematic Review, is the ‘living’ method appropriate and is the search schedule clearly defined and justified? (‘Living Systematic Review’ or a variation of this term should be included in the title.)

Not applicable

Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed.

Reviewer Expertise: trauma and fractures management in oral maxillofacial

I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard, however I have significant reservations, as outlined above.

CITE

Report a concern

Author Response 25 Feb 2025

bramasto purbo sejati, Departemnt of Oral and maxillofacial Surgery, Universitas Gadjah Mada, Yogyakarta, 55284, Indonesia

25 Feb 2025

Author Response

Reviewer 2:
Power:
Comprehensive Review: The paper systematically reviews complications associated with miniplate insertion in maxillofacial fractures over a decade, providing a broad and updated perspective, as mention on methods ... Continue reading Reviewer 2:
Power:
Comprehensive Review: The paper systematically reviews complications associated with miniplate insertion in maxillofacial fractures over a decade, providing a broad and updated perspective, as mention on methods that data examined from September 1, 2014, to September 1, 2024.
Diverse Data Sources: It utilizes multiple databases (Cochrane Library, PubMed, Scopus) and includes studies without language constraints, ensuring a wide range of data as mentioned in methods section, data source and searches.
Methodological Rigor: The review follows PRISMA guidelines and employs robust tools (ROBINS-I, Cochrane risk of bias tool) for assessing study quality, enhancing the reliability of findings.
Balanced Study Designs: The inclusion of both interventional and observational studies offers a comprehensive analysis of the phenomena. This distribution represents a balance between experimental and observational research methodologies within the dataset, offering a comprehensive foundation for analyzing the investigated phenomena.
Focus on Novel Techniques: The paper highlights advanced methodologies like 3D plate systems and locking mechanisms, which show promise in reducing complications.
Response: Thank you for your review and acknowledgment.

Weakness:
Heterogeneity: The included studies exhibit significant variability in patient demographics, treatment durations, and methodologies, which limits the ability to perform a meta-analysis. One of the example is decision to include the use of miniplate in orthognatic surgery, Because the title is focussing in complication of miniplate in maxillofacial fractures, but the samples used in this research also include miniplate in orthognatic surgery which is very different in outcomes or surgery result.
Response: Thank you for review. We acknowledge this in our limitation of study.

Lack of Standardization: The absence of standardized outcome measures across studies makes it challenging to compare results directly. Although I cant find table 2 as result in the article, I could tell that it is challenging since there will be differences outcome because the different usage in fracture cases and orthognatic cases
Response: We agree with your suggestion. Due to the significant heterogeneity of the included studies, we were unable to conduct a meta-analysis; therefore, we can only perform a systematic review.

Limited Prospective Data: There is a need for more prospective studies to better understand the long-term effects of miniplate utilization. As mention in article that Additional study utilizing standardized outcomes and prospective designs is essential to enhance comprehension of the long-term effects of miniplate utilization
Response: We acknowledge this as the limitation of the study.

Potential Bias: Despite using robust tools, the risk of bias in some studies remains unclear, which could affect the overall conclusions. We might correct this by using statistic to eliminate any factor that has potential bias, but unfortunately I cant find any of them in this article.
Response: We utilize the risk of bias assessment tool based on the Joanna Briggs Institute assessment scale. According to the grading scale, we cannot draw an overall conclusion; instead, we will categorize each item with responses of “yes,” “no,” and “unclear.”

Overall, the paper provides valuable insights but also highlights the need for more standardized and prospective research to fully understand the implications of miniplate insertion in maxillofacial fractures. However, In my opinion the article provides a comprehensive exploration of the role and applications of miniplates in craniofacial surgery and Oral and maxillofacial field procedures. It delves into their potential complications, offering insights into their effectiveness in stabilizing fractures, facilitating orthodontic surgery, and supporting reconstructive surgeries. This article broadens our understanding of miniplate application, guiding clinicians in selecting appropriate systems and optimizing outcomes. By addressing both benefits and limitations, it serves as a valuable resource for advancing knowledge in the field and improving patient care.
Response: We sincerely appreciate the reviewer’s favorable remarks and perceptive recommendations. In accordance with the given comments, we have meticulously revised the manuscript to improve clarity and coherence.
Reviewer 2:
Power:
Comprehensive Review: The paper systematically reviews complications associated with miniplate insertion in maxillofacial fractures over a decade, providing a broad and updated perspective, as mention on methods that data examined from September 1, 2014, to September 1, 2024.
Diverse Data Sources: It utilizes multiple databases (Cochrane Library, PubMed, Scopus) and includes studies without language constraints, ensuring a wide range of data as mentioned in methods section, data source and searches.
Methodological Rigor: The review follows PRISMA guidelines and employs robust tools (ROBINS-I, Cochrane risk of bias tool) for assessing study quality, enhancing the reliability of findings.
Balanced Study Designs: The inclusion of both interventional and observational studies offers a comprehensive analysis of the phenomena. This distribution represents a balance between experimental and observational research methodologies within the dataset, offering a comprehensive foundation for analyzing the investigated phenomena.
Focus on Novel Techniques: The paper highlights advanced methodologies like 3D plate systems and locking mechanisms, which show promise in reducing complications.
Response: Thank you for your review and acknowledgment.

Weakness:
Heterogeneity: The included studies exhibit significant variability in patient demographics, treatment durations, and methodologies, which limits the ability to perform a meta-analysis. One of the example is decision to include the use of miniplate in orthognatic surgery, Because the title is focussing in complication of miniplate in maxillofacial fractures, but the samples used in this research also include miniplate in orthognatic surgery which is very different in outcomes or surgery result.
Response: Thank you for review. We acknowledge this in our limitation of study.

Lack of Standardization: The absence of standardized outcome measures across studies makes it challenging to compare results directly. Although I cant find table 2 as result in the article, I could tell that it is challenging since there will be differences outcome because the different usage in fracture cases and orthognatic cases
Response: We agree with your suggestion. Due to the significant heterogeneity of the included studies, we were unable to conduct a meta-analysis; therefore, we can only perform a systematic review.

Limited Prospective Data: There is a need for more prospective studies to better understand the long-term effects of miniplate utilization. As mention in article that Additional study utilizing standardized outcomes and prospective designs is essential to enhance comprehension of the long-term effects of miniplate utilization
Response: We acknowledge this as the limitation of the study.

Potential Bias: Despite using robust tools, the risk of bias in some studies remains unclear, which could affect the overall conclusions. We might correct this by using statistic to eliminate any factor that has potential bias, but unfortunately I cant find any of them in this article.
Response: We utilize the risk of bias assessment tool based on the Joanna Briggs Institute assessment scale. According to the grading scale, we cannot draw an overall conclusion; instead, we will categorize each item with responses of “yes,” “no,” and “unclear.”

Overall, the paper provides valuable insights but also highlights the need for more standardized and prospective research to fully understand the implications of miniplate insertion in maxillofacial fractures. However, In my opinion the article provides a comprehensive exploration of the role and applications of miniplates in craniofacial surgery and Oral and maxillofacial field procedures. It delves into their potential complications, offering insights into their effectiveness in stabilizing fractures, facilitating orthodontic surgery, and supporting reconstructive surgeries. This article broadens our understanding of miniplate application, guiding clinicians in selecting appropriate systems and optimizing outcomes. By addressing both benefits and limitations, it serves as a valuable resource for advancing knowledge in the field and improving patient care.
Response: We sincerely appreciate the reviewer’s favorable remarks and perceptive recommendations. In accordance with the given comments, we have meticulously revised the manuscript to improve clarity and coherence.
Competing Interests: none Close
Report a concern
Respond or Comment

COMMENTS ON THIS REPORT

Author Response 25 Feb 2025

bramasto purbo sejati, Departemnt of Oral and maxillofacial Surgery, Universitas Gadjah Mada, Yogyakarta, 55284, Indonesia

25 Feb 2025

Author Response

Reviewer 2:
Power:
Comprehensive Review: The paper systematically reviews complications associated with miniplate insertion in maxillofacial fractures over a decade, providing a broad and updated perspective, as mention on methods ... Continue reading Reviewer 2:
Power:
Comprehensive Review: The paper systematically reviews complications associated with miniplate insertion in maxillofacial fractures over a decade, providing a broad and updated perspective, as mention on methods that data examined from September 1, 2014, to September 1, 2024.
Diverse Data Sources: It utilizes multiple databases (Cochrane Library, PubMed, Scopus) and includes studies without language constraints, ensuring a wide range of data as mentioned in methods section, data source and searches.
Methodological Rigor: The review follows PRISMA guidelines and employs robust tools (ROBINS-I, Cochrane risk of bias tool) for assessing study quality, enhancing the reliability of findings.
Balanced Study Designs: The inclusion of both interventional and observational studies offers a comprehensive analysis of the phenomena. This distribution represents a balance between experimental and observational research methodologies within the dataset, offering a comprehensive foundation for analyzing the investigated phenomena.
Focus on Novel Techniques: The paper highlights advanced methodologies like 3D plate systems and locking mechanisms, which show promise in reducing complications.
Response: Thank you for your review and acknowledgment.

Weakness:
Heterogeneity: The included studies exhibit significant variability in patient demographics, treatment durations, and methodologies, which limits the ability to perform a meta-analysis. One of the example is decision to include the use of miniplate in orthognatic surgery, Because the title is focussing in complication of miniplate in maxillofacial fractures, but the samples used in this research also include miniplate in orthognatic surgery which is very different in outcomes or surgery result.
Response: Thank you for review. We acknowledge this in our limitation of study.

Lack of Standardization: The absence of standardized outcome measures across studies makes it challenging to compare results directly. Although I cant find table 2 as result in the article, I could tell that it is challenging since there will be differences outcome because the different usage in fracture cases and orthognatic cases
Response: We agree with your suggestion. Due to the significant heterogeneity of the included studies, we were unable to conduct a meta-analysis; therefore, we can only perform a systematic review.

Limited Prospective Data: There is a need for more prospective studies to better understand the long-term effects of miniplate utilization. As mention in article that Additional study utilizing standardized outcomes and prospective designs is essential to enhance comprehension of the long-term effects of miniplate utilization
Response: We acknowledge this as the limitation of the study.

Potential Bias: Despite using robust tools, the risk of bias in some studies remains unclear, which could affect the overall conclusions. We might correct this by using statistic to eliminate any factor that has potential bias, but unfortunately I cant find any of them in this article.
Response: We utilize the risk of bias assessment tool based on the Joanna Briggs Institute assessment scale. According to the grading scale, we cannot draw an overall conclusion; instead, we will categorize each item with responses of “yes,” “no,” and “unclear.”

Overall, the paper provides valuable insights but also highlights the need for more standardized and prospective research to fully understand the implications of miniplate insertion in maxillofacial fractures. However, In my opinion the article provides a comprehensive exploration of the role and applications of miniplates in craniofacial surgery and Oral and maxillofacial field procedures. It delves into their potential complications, offering insights into their effectiveness in stabilizing fractures, facilitating orthodontic surgery, and supporting reconstructive surgeries. This article broadens our understanding of miniplate application, guiding clinicians in selecting appropriate systems and optimizing outcomes. By addressing both benefits and limitations, it serves as a valuable resource for advancing knowledge in the field and improving patient care.
Response: We sincerely appreciate the reviewer’s favorable remarks and perceptive recommendations. In accordance with the given comments, we have meticulously revised the manuscript to improve clarity and coherence.
Reviewer 2:
Power:
Comprehensive Review: The paper systematically reviews complications associated with miniplate insertion in maxillofacial fractures over a decade, providing a broad and updated perspective, as mention on methods that data examined from September 1, 2014, to September 1, 2024.
Diverse Data Sources: It utilizes multiple databases (Cochrane Library, PubMed, Scopus) and includes studies without language constraints, ensuring a wide range of data as mentioned in methods section, data source and searches.
Methodological Rigor: The review follows PRISMA guidelines and employs robust tools (ROBINS-I, Cochrane risk of bias tool) for assessing study quality, enhancing the reliability of findings.
Balanced Study Designs: The inclusion of both interventional and observational studies offers a comprehensive analysis of the phenomena. This distribution represents a balance between experimental and observational research methodologies within the dataset, offering a comprehensive foundation for analyzing the investigated phenomena.
Focus on Novel Techniques: The paper highlights advanced methodologies like 3D plate systems and locking mechanisms, which show promise in reducing complications.
Response: Thank you for your review and acknowledgment.

Weakness:
Heterogeneity: The included studies exhibit significant variability in patient demographics, treatment durations, and methodologies, which limits the ability to perform a meta-analysis. One of the example is decision to include the use of miniplate in orthognatic surgery, Because the title is focussing in complication of miniplate in maxillofacial fractures, but the samples used in this research also include miniplate in orthognatic surgery which is very different in outcomes or surgery result.
Response: Thank you for review. We acknowledge this in our limitation of study.

Lack of Standardization: The absence of standardized outcome measures across studies makes it challenging to compare results directly. Although I cant find table 2 as result in the article, I could tell that it is challenging since there will be differences outcome because the different usage in fracture cases and orthognatic cases
Response: We agree with your suggestion. Due to the significant heterogeneity of the included studies, we were unable to conduct a meta-analysis; therefore, we can only perform a systematic review.

Limited Prospective Data: There is a need for more prospective studies to better understand the long-term effects of miniplate utilization. As mention in article that Additional study utilizing standardized outcomes and prospective designs is essential to enhance comprehension of the long-term effects of miniplate utilization
Response: We acknowledge this as the limitation of the study.

Potential Bias: Despite using robust tools, the risk of bias in some studies remains unclear, which could affect the overall conclusions. We might correct this by using statistic to eliminate any factor that has potential bias, but unfortunately I cant find any of them in this article.
Response: We utilize the risk of bias assessment tool based on the Joanna Briggs Institute assessment scale. According to the grading scale, we cannot draw an overall conclusion; instead, we will categorize each item with responses of “yes,” “no,” and “unclear.”

Overall, the paper provides valuable insights but also highlights the need for more standardized and prospective research to fully understand the implications of miniplate insertion in maxillofacial fractures. However, In my opinion the article provides a comprehensive exploration of the role and applications of miniplates in craniofacial surgery and Oral and maxillofacial field procedures. It delves into their potential complications, offering insights into their effectiveness in stabilizing fractures, facilitating orthodontic surgery, and supporting reconstructive surgeries. This article broadens our understanding of miniplate application, guiding clinicians in selecting appropriate systems and optimizing outcomes. By addressing both benefits and limitations, it serves as a valuable resource for advancing knowledge in the field and improving patient care.
Response: We sincerely appreciate the reviewer’s favorable remarks and perceptive recommendations. In accordance with the given comments, we have meticulously revised the manuscript to improve clarity and coherence.
Competing Interests: none Close
Report a concern

Views

Reviewer Report 16 Jan 2025

Mohamed Jaber, Ajman University, Ajman, United Arab Emirates

Not Approved

https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.174686.r355750

Review Report for Manuscript Submitted to F1000Research
Title: Complications following miniplate insertion in maxillofacial fractures: A systematic review.
The manuscript is relevant to the field of maxillofacial surgery and explores an important area: complications associated with miniplate insertion. It aligns with the interests of F1000Research, particularly in presenting evidence-based insights useful for clinical practice. However, significant improvements are required for it to meet the journal's standards of rigor and clarity.
Key findings

The manuscript reviews ten years of data on complications following miniplate insertion, providing valuable insights into trends and advanced methodologies.
The focus on novel techniques such as 3D plate systems highlights advancements with potential to reduce complications.
The authors adhere to PRISMA guidelines and employ robust tools like the ROBINS-I and Cochrane risk of bias tools to evaluate study quality.
The discussion emphasizes the need for standardized outcomes and prospective studies, which is vital for advancing clinical practices.

Limitations and Suggestions for Improvement:

The results and discussion sections could benefit from deeper statistical and comparative analyses. For example: provide quantitative comparisons between traditional and advanced methodologies. Detail the statistical significance of the findings related to complication rates.
The search strategy appears robust, but details on the inclusion/exclusion criteria for studies are insufficient. A clearer explanation of why certain studies were excluded (e.g., irrelevance or quality issues) would enhance transparency.
Some sections, particularly the introduction and discussion, are repetitive. Consolidating overlapping points and presenting a more concise narrative will improve readability.
The inclusion of figures or summary tables (e.g., comparison of complication rates by technique) would better communicate the findings.
While the PRISMA framework was followed, the authors did not conduct a meta-analysis. If heterogeneity precluded this, it should be explicitly stated and justified in the text.
The language is generally clear but needs refinement to eliminate redundancy and improve flow. For example, the repeated mention of infection rates and their significance across sections could be consolidated.
Certain sentences are overly technical, which might hinder accessibility for a broader audience. Simplifying terminology without losing accuracy is recommended.
The manuscript lacks a detailed comparison of its findings with those of previous reviews or meta-analyses. Highlighting how this review advances knowledge or contradicts earlier work would enhance its contribution.
A more robust discussion of study limitations is necessary, particularly concerning variability in patient demographics and differences in surgical expertise, healthcare infrastructure across studies, and retrospective study designs in many included papers.

Key Recommendations:

Include statistical analyses or at least a detailed qualitative comparison of complication rates.
Streamline the text, especially in sections with overlapping content.
Add summary tables or figures to improve data visualization.
Clarify methodological choices, particularly regarding the heterogeneity of included studies.
Expand on the implications of the findings, both clinical and research-oriented.

Suitability for indexing:
The manuscript has potential but requires revisions to strengthen its methodological rigor, depth of analysis, and presentation. With these changes, it could serve as a valuable resource for clinicians and researchers in maxillofacial surgery.
I recommend major revisions prior to indexing.

Thank you

Are the rationale for, and objectives of, the Systematic Review clearly stated?

Yes
Are sufficient details of the methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others?

Partly
Is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate?

Partly
Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results presented in the review?

Partly
If this is a Living Systematic Review, is the ‘living’ method appropriate and is the search schedule clearly defined and justified? (‘Living Systematic Review’ or a variation of this term should be included in the title.)

Not applicable

Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed.

Reviewer Expertise: Maxillofacial injuries, Oral cancer and precancer, dental education

I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to state that I do not consider it to be of an acceptable scientific standard, for reasons outlined above.

CITE

Report a concern

Author Response 28 Feb 2025

bramasto purbo sejati, Departemnt of Oral and maxillofacial Surgery, Universitas Gadjah Mada, Yogyakarta, 55284, Indonesia

28 Feb 2025

Author Response

Reviewer 1:
Review Report for Manuscript Submitted to F1000Research
Title: Complications following miniplate insertion in maxillofacial fractures: A systematic review.
The manuscript is relevant to the field of maxillofacial surgery ... Continue reading Reviewer 1:
Review Report for Manuscript Submitted to F1000Research
Title: Complications following miniplate insertion in maxillofacial fractures: A systematic review.
The manuscript is relevant to the field of maxillofacial surgery and explores an important area: complications associated with miniplate insertion. It aligns with the interests of F1000Research, particularly in presenting evidence-based insights useful for clinical practice. However, significant improvements are required for it to meet the journal's standards of rigor and clarity.
Key findings
The manuscript reviews ten years of data on complications following miniplate insertion, providing valuable insights into trends and advanced methodologies.
The focus on novel techniques such as 3D plate systems highlights advancements with potential to reduce complications.
The authors adhere to PRISMA guidelines and employ robust tools like the ROBINS-I and Cochrane risk of bias tools to evaluate study quality.
The discussion emphasizes the need for standardized outcomes and prospective studies, which is vital for advancing clinical practices.

Response: Thank you for your insightful assessment and constructive recommendations. We value your acknowledgment of the manuscript's significance to maxillofacial surgery and its prospective impact on clinical practice.
----------

Limitations and Suggestions for Improvement:
The results and discussion sections could benefit from deeper statistical and comparative analyses. For example: provide quantitative comparisons between traditional and advanced methodologies. Detail the statistical significance of the findings related to complication rates.

Response: Thank you for your insightful feedback. We recognize the significance of comprehensive statistical and comparative analysis. Nonetheless, the heterogeneity of the included studies—characterized by differences in research design, patient demographics, intervention procedures, and outcome measures—precluded the possibility of conducting a meta-analysis or offering direct statistical comparisons between traditional and advanced approaches. We performed a systematic review to qualitatively synthesize the existing evidence. This limitation has been explicitly addressed in the manuscript's Limitation section to maintain transparency. We have meticulously analyzed the findings to offer significant insights into the trends and possible ramifications of the examined approaches.
----------

The search strategy appears robust, but details on the inclusion/exclusion criteria for studies are insufficient. A clearer explanation of why certain studies were excluded (e.g., irrelevance or quality issues) would enhance transparency.

Response: Thank you for your input. We value your inquiry regarding the criteria for inclusion and exclusion. We wish to highlight that the justifications for study exclusion have already been detailed in Appendix Table 1.
----------

Some sections, particularly the introduction and discussion, are repetitive. Consolidating overlapping points and presenting a more concise narrative will improve readability.

Response: We have carefully reviewed the manuscript and guaranteed that the updated version is more succinct, with superfluous points eliminated, especially in the Introduction and Discussion sections. The revised version now offers a more coherent and concise narrative while preserving the requisite analytical depth. We value your recommendation and assert that these modifications improve the manuscript's general readability.
----------
The inclusion of figures or summary tables (e.g., comparison of complication rates by technique) would better communicate the findings.

Response: To improve clarity and effectively convey our data, we have incorporated Table 2, which presents a comparative summary of complication rates by technique. Nonetheless, owing to the heterogeneity of the data—characterized by discrepancies in study designs, outcome definitions, and patient populations—we were unable to produce a forest plot or do a meta-analysis. The manuscript acknowledges this limitation.
----------
While the PRISMA framework was followed, the authors did not conduct a meta-analysis. If heterogeneity precluded this, it should be explicitly stated and justified in the text.

Response: The manuscript acknowledges this limitation.
----------
The language is generally clear but needs refinement to eliminate redundancy and improve flow. For example, the repeated mention of infection rates and their significance across sections could be consolidated.

Response: The document has been carefully reviewed and the text has been updated to remove redundancy and enhance overall coherence. We have synthesized redundant references to infection rates and their significance to provide a more concise and consistent presentation.
----------
Certain sentences are overly technical, which might hinder accessibility for a broader audience. Simplifying terminology without losing accuracy is recommended.

Response: We have carefully reviewed the manuscript and refined excessively technical sentences to improve readability while preserving scientific precision. We have refined terminology when necessary to maintain accessibility for a wider audience while preserving the integrity of our analysis.
----------

The manuscript lacks a detailed comparison of its findings with those of previous reviews or meta-analyses. Highlighting how this review advances knowledge or contradicts earlier work would enhance its contribution.

Response: To mitigate this risk, we have included citations of prior systematic reviews in the Introduction to contextualize our analysis. Furthermore, we have ensured that our discourse emphasizes how our findings correlate with and enhance the current body of research.
----------

A more robust discussion of study limitations is necessary, particularly concerning variability in patient demographics and differences in surgical expertise, healthcare infrastructure across studies, and retrospective study designs in many included papers.

Response: We have enhanced the Limitations section to offer a more comprehensive analysis of the probable sources of variability in our selected studies. We now examine variations in patient demographics, surgical proficiency, and healthcare infrastructure that may affect the reported outcomes. Furthermore, we recognize the influence of retrospective study designs in numerous included articles and its consequences for data dependability and bias.
----------

Key Recommendations:
Include statistical analyses or at least a detailed qualitative comparison of complication rates.
Streamline the text, especially in sections with overlapping content.
Add summary tables or figures to improve data visualization.
Clarify methodological choices, particularly regarding the heterogeneity of included studies.
Expand on the implications of the findings, both clinical and research-oriented.

Response: I appreciate your valuable suggestions. We have carefully evaluated each point and updated the manuscript accordingly. To fulfill the requirement for statistical or qualitative comparisons, we have presented a comprehensive qualitative comparison of complication rates in Table 2, as a meta-analysis was impracticable due to data heterogeneity. We have refined the language, especially in the Introduction and Discussion, to remove redundancy and enhance clarity. Table 2 has been incorporated to summarize significant findings for improved data presentation; nevertheless, a forest plot could not be produced due to the diversity of the included research. Furthermore, we have elucidated our methodological selections, especially about the influence of sample heterogeneity, in the Methods and Limitations sections. We have broadened the discourse on the clinical and research ramifications of our findings to emphasize their importance and prospective research avenues. We value your astute recommendations, which have enhanced the manuscript.
----------

Suitability for indexing:
The manuscript has potential but requires revisions to strengthen its methodological rigor, depth of analysis, and presentation. With these changes, it could serve as a valuable resource for clinicians and researchers in maxillofacial surgery.
I recommend major revisions prior to indexing.

Response: Thank you for your assessment and insightful feedback. We have carefully revised the manuscript to enhance its methodological rigor, analytical depth, and presentation, in accordance with your recommendations. The modifications have been emphasized in red for your convenience. We anticipate that the improvements align with your expectations and augment the manuscript's utility as a significant resource for physicians and researchers in maxillofacial surgery.
Reviewer 1:
Review Report for Manuscript Submitted to F1000Research
Title: Complications following miniplate insertion in maxillofacial fractures: A systematic review.
The manuscript is relevant to the field of maxillofacial surgery and explores an important area: complications associated with miniplate insertion. It aligns with the interests of F1000Research, particularly in presenting evidence-based insights useful for clinical practice. However, significant improvements are required for it to meet the journal's standards of rigor and clarity.
Key findings
The manuscript reviews ten years of data on complications following miniplate insertion, providing valuable insights into trends and advanced methodologies.
The focus on novel techniques such as 3D plate systems highlights advancements with potential to reduce complications.
The authors adhere to PRISMA guidelines and employ robust tools like the ROBINS-I and Cochrane risk of bias tools to evaluate study quality.
The discussion emphasizes the need for standardized outcomes and prospective studies, which is vital for advancing clinical practices.

Response: Thank you for your insightful assessment and constructive recommendations. We value your acknowledgment of the manuscript's significance to maxillofacial surgery and its prospective impact on clinical practice.
----------

Limitations and Suggestions for Improvement:
The results and discussion sections could benefit from deeper statistical and comparative analyses. For example: provide quantitative comparisons between traditional and advanced methodologies. Detail the statistical significance of the findings related to complication rates.

Response: Thank you for your insightful feedback. We recognize the significance of comprehensive statistical and comparative analysis. Nonetheless, the heterogeneity of the included studies—characterized by differences in research design, patient demographics, intervention procedures, and outcome measures—precluded the possibility of conducting a meta-analysis or offering direct statistical comparisons between traditional and advanced approaches. We performed a systematic review to qualitatively synthesize the existing evidence. This limitation has been explicitly addressed in the manuscript's Limitation section to maintain transparency. We have meticulously analyzed the findings to offer significant insights into the trends and possible ramifications of the examined approaches.
----------

The search strategy appears robust, but details on the inclusion/exclusion criteria for studies are insufficient. A clearer explanation of why certain studies were excluded (e.g., irrelevance or quality issues) would enhance transparency.

Response: Thank you for your input. We value your inquiry regarding the criteria for inclusion and exclusion. We wish to highlight that the justifications for study exclusion have already been detailed in Appendix Table 1.
----------

Some sections, particularly the introduction and discussion, are repetitive. Consolidating overlapping points and presenting a more concise narrative will improve readability.

Response: We have carefully reviewed the manuscript and guaranteed that the updated version is more succinct, with superfluous points eliminated, especially in the Introduction and Discussion sections. The revised version now offers a more coherent and concise narrative while preserving the requisite analytical depth. We value your recommendation and assert that these modifications improve the manuscript's general readability.
----------
The inclusion of figures or summary tables (e.g., comparison of complication rates by technique) would better communicate the findings.

Response: To improve clarity and effectively convey our data, we have incorporated Table 2, which presents a comparative summary of complication rates by technique. Nonetheless, owing to the heterogeneity of the data—characterized by discrepancies in study designs, outcome definitions, and patient populations—we were unable to produce a forest plot or do a meta-analysis. The manuscript acknowledges this limitation.
----------
While the PRISMA framework was followed, the authors did not conduct a meta-analysis. If heterogeneity precluded this, it should be explicitly stated and justified in the text.

Response: The manuscript acknowledges this limitation.
----------
The language is generally clear but needs refinement to eliminate redundancy and improve flow. For example, the repeated mention of infection rates and their significance across sections could be consolidated.

Response: The document has been carefully reviewed and the text has been updated to remove redundancy and enhance overall coherence. We have synthesized redundant references to infection rates and their significance to provide a more concise and consistent presentation.
----------
Certain sentences are overly technical, which might hinder accessibility for a broader audience. Simplifying terminology without losing accuracy is recommended.

Response: We have carefully reviewed the manuscript and refined excessively technical sentences to improve readability while preserving scientific precision. We have refined terminology when necessary to maintain accessibility for a wider audience while preserving the integrity of our analysis.
----------

The manuscript lacks a detailed comparison of its findings with those of previous reviews or meta-analyses. Highlighting how this review advances knowledge or contradicts earlier work would enhance its contribution.

Response: To mitigate this risk, we have included citations of prior systematic reviews in the Introduction to contextualize our analysis. Furthermore, we have ensured that our discourse emphasizes how our findings correlate with and enhance the current body of research.
----------

A more robust discussion of study limitations is necessary, particularly concerning variability in patient demographics and differences in surgical expertise, healthcare infrastructure across studies, and retrospective study designs in many included papers.

Response: We have enhanced the Limitations section to offer a more comprehensive analysis of the probable sources of variability in our selected studies. We now examine variations in patient demographics, surgical proficiency, and healthcare infrastructure that may affect the reported outcomes. Furthermore, we recognize the influence of retrospective study designs in numerous included articles and its consequences for data dependability and bias.
----------

Key Recommendations:
Include statistical analyses or at least a detailed qualitative comparison of complication rates.
Streamline the text, especially in sections with overlapping content.
Add summary tables or figures to improve data visualization.
Clarify methodological choices, particularly regarding the heterogeneity of included studies.
Expand on the implications of the findings, both clinical and research-oriented.

Response: I appreciate your valuable suggestions. We have carefully evaluated each point and updated the manuscript accordingly. To fulfill the requirement for statistical or qualitative comparisons, we have presented a comprehensive qualitative comparison of complication rates in Table 2, as a meta-analysis was impracticable due to data heterogeneity. We have refined the language, especially in the Introduction and Discussion, to remove redundancy and enhance clarity. Table 2 has been incorporated to summarize significant findings for improved data presentation; nevertheless, a forest plot could not be produced due to the diversity of the included research. Furthermore, we have elucidated our methodological selections, especially about the influence of sample heterogeneity, in the Methods and Limitations sections. We have broadened the discourse on the clinical and research ramifications of our findings to emphasize their importance and prospective research avenues. We value your astute recommendations, which have enhanced the manuscript.
----------

Suitability for indexing:
The manuscript has potential but requires revisions to strengthen its methodological rigor, depth of analysis, and presentation. With these changes, it could serve as a valuable resource for clinicians and researchers in maxillofacial surgery.
I recommend major revisions prior to indexing.

Response: Thank you for your assessment and insightful feedback. We have carefully revised the manuscript to enhance its methodological rigor, analytical depth, and presentation, in accordance with your recommendations. The modifications have been emphasized in red for your convenience. We anticipate that the improvements align with your expectations and augment the manuscript's utility as a significant resource for physicians and researchers in maxillofacial surgery.
Competing Interests: none Close
Report a concern
Respond or Comment

COMMENTS ON THIS REPORT

Author Response 28 Feb 2025

bramasto purbo sejati, Departemnt of Oral and maxillofacial Surgery, Universitas Gadjah Mada, Yogyakarta, 55284, Indonesia

28 Feb 2025

Author Response

Reviewer 1:
Review Report for Manuscript Submitted to F1000Research
Title: Complications following miniplate insertion in maxillofacial fractures: A systematic review.
The manuscript is relevant to the field of maxillofacial surgery ... Continue reading Reviewer 1:
Review Report for Manuscript Submitted to F1000Research
Title: Complications following miniplate insertion in maxillofacial fractures: A systematic review.
The manuscript is relevant to the field of maxillofacial surgery and explores an important area: complications associated with miniplate insertion. It aligns with the interests of F1000Research, particularly in presenting evidence-based insights useful for clinical practice. However, significant improvements are required for it to meet the journal's standards of rigor and clarity.
Key findings
The manuscript reviews ten years of data on complications following miniplate insertion, providing valuable insights into trends and advanced methodologies.
The focus on novel techniques such as 3D plate systems highlights advancements with potential to reduce complications.
The authors adhere to PRISMA guidelines and employ robust tools like the ROBINS-I and Cochrane risk of bias tools to evaluate study quality.
The discussion emphasizes the need for standardized outcomes and prospective studies, which is vital for advancing clinical practices.

Response: Thank you for your insightful assessment and constructive recommendations. We value your acknowledgment of the manuscript's significance to maxillofacial surgery and its prospective impact on clinical practice.
----------

Limitations and Suggestions for Improvement:
The results and discussion sections could benefit from deeper statistical and comparative analyses. For example: provide quantitative comparisons between traditional and advanced methodologies. Detail the statistical significance of the findings related to complication rates.

Response: Thank you for your insightful feedback. We recognize the significance of comprehensive statistical and comparative analysis. Nonetheless, the heterogeneity of the included studies—characterized by differences in research design, patient demographics, intervention procedures, and outcome measures—precluded the possibility of conducting a meta-analysis or offering direct statistical comparisons between traditional and advanced approaches. We performed a systematic review to qualitatively synthesize the existing evidence. This limitation has been explicitly addressed in the manuscript's Limitation section to maintain transparency. We have meticulously analyzed the findings to offer significant insights into the trends and possible ramifications of the examined approaches.
----------

The search strategy appears robust, but details on the inclusion/exclusion criteria for studies are insufficient. A clearer explanation of why certain studies were excluded (e.g., irrelevance or quality issues) would enhance transparency.

Response: Thank you for your input. We value your inquiry regarding the criteria for inclusion and exclusion. We wish to highlight that the justifications for study exclusion have already been detailed in Appendix Table 1.
----------

Some sections, particularly the introduction and discussion, are repetitive. Consolidating overlapping points and presenting a more concise narrative will improve readability.

Response: We have carefully reviewed the manuscript and guaranteed that the updated version is more succinct, with superfluous points eliminated, especially in the Introduction and Discussion sections. The revised version now offers a more coherent and concise narrative while preserving the requisite analytical depth. We value your recommendation and assert that these modifications improve the manuscript's general readability.
----------
The inclusion of figures or summary tables (e.g., comparison of complication rates by technique) would better communicate the findings.

Response: To improve clarity and effectively convey our data, we have incorporated Table 2, which presents a comparative summary of complication rates by technique. Nonetheless, owing to the heterogeneity of the data—characterized by discrepancies in study designs, outcome definitions, and patient populations—we were unable to produce a forest plot or do a meta-analysis. The manuscript acknowledges this limitation.
----------
While the PRISMA framework was followed, the authors did not conduct a meta-analysis. If heterogeneity precluded this, it should be explicitly stated and justified in the text.

Response: The manuscript acknowledges this limitation.
----------
The language is generally clear but needs refinement to eliminate redundancy and improve flow. For example, the repeated mention of infection rates and their significance across sections could be consolidated.

Response: The document has been carefully reviewed and the text has been updated to remove redundancy and enhance overall coherence. We have synthesized redundant references to infection rates and their significance to provide a more concise and consistent presentation.
----------
Certain sentences are overly technical, which might hinder accessibility for a broader audience. Simplifying terminology without losing accuracy is recommended.

Response: We have carefully reviewed the manuscript and refined excessively technical sentences to improve readability while preserving scientific precision. We have refined terminology when necessary to maintain accessibility for a wider audience while preserving the integrity of our analysis.
----------

The manuscript lacks a detailed comparison of its findings with those of previous reviews or meta-analyses. Highlighting how this review advances knowledge or contradicts earlier work would enhance its contribution.

Response: To mitigate this risk, we have included citations of prior systematic reviews in the Introduction to contextualize our analysis. Furthermore, we have ensured that our discourse emphasizes how our findings correlate with and enhance the current body of research.
----------

A more robust discussion of study limitations is necessary, particularly concerning variability in patient demographics and differences in surgical expertise, healthcare infrastructure across studies, and retrospective study designs in many included papers.

Response: We have enhanced the Limitations section to offer a more comprehensive analysis of the probable sources of variability in our selected studies. We now examine variations in patient demographics, surgical proficiency, and healthcare infrastructure that may affect the reported outcomes. Furthermore, we recognize the influence of retrospective study designs in numerous included articles and its consequences for data dependability and bias.
----------

Key Recommendations:
Include statistical analyses or at least a detailed qualitative comparison of complication rates.
Streamline the text, especially in sections with overlapping content.
Add summary tables or figures to improve data visualization.
Clarify methodological choices, particularly regarding the heterogeneity of included studies.
Expand on the implications of the findings, both clinical and research-oriented.

Response: I appreciate your valuable suggestions. We have carefully evaluated each point and updated the manuscript accordingly. To fulfill the requirement for statistical or qualitative comparisons, we have presented a comprehensive qualitative comparison of complication rates in Table 2, as a meta-analysis was impracticable due to data heterogeneity. We have refined the language, especially in the Introduction and Discussion, to remove redundancy and enhance clarity. Table 2 has been incorporated to summarize significant findings for improved data presentation; nevertheless, a forest plot could not be produced due to the diversity of the included research. Furthermore, we have elucidated our methodological selections, especially about the influence of sample heterogeneity, in the Methods and Limitations sections. We have broadened the discourse on the clinical and research ramifications of our findings to emphasize their importance and prospective research avenues. We value your astute recommendations, which have enhanced the manuscript.
----------

Suitability for indexing:
The manuscript has potential but requires revisions to strengthen its methodological rigor, depth of analysis, and presentation. With these changes, it could serve as a valuable resource for clinicians and researchers in maxillofacial surgery.
I recommend major revisions prior to indexing.

Response: Thank you for your assessment and insightful feedback. We have carefully revised the manuscript to enhance its methodological rigor, analytical depth, and presentation, in accordance with your recommendations. The modifications have been emphasized in red for your convenience. We anticipate that the improvements align with your expectations and augment the manuscript's utility as a significant resource for physicians and researchers in maxillofacial surgery.
Reviewer 1:
Review Report for Manuscript Submitted to F1000Research
Title: Complications following miniplate insertion in maxillofacial fractures: A systematic review.
The manuscript is relevant to the field of maxillofacial surgery and explores an important area: complications associated with miniplate insertion. It aligns with the interests of F1000Research, particularly in presenting evidence-based insights useful for clinical practice. However, significant improvements are required for it to meet the journal's standards of rigor and clarity.
Key findings
The manuscript reviews ten years of data on complications following miniplate insertion, providing valuable insights into trends and advanced methodologies.
The focus on novel techniques such as 3D plate systems highlights advancements with potential to reduce complications.
The authors adhere to PRISMA guidelines and employ robust tools like the ROBINS-I and Cochrane risk of bias tools to evaluate study quality.
The discussion emphasizes the need for standardized outcomes and prospective studies, which is vital for advancing clinical practices.

Response: Thank you for your insightful assessment and constructive recommendations. We value your acknowledgment of the manuscript's significance to maxillofacial surgery and its prospective impact on clinical practice.
----------

Limitations and Suggestions for Improvement:
The results and discussion sections could benefit from deeper statistical and comparative analyses. For example: provide quantitative comparisons between traditional and advanced methodologies. Detail the statistical significance of the findings related to complication rates.

Response: Thank you for your insightful feedback. We recognize the significance of comprehensive statistical and comparative analysis. Nonetheless, the heterogeneity of the included studies—characterized by differences in research design, patient demographics, intervention procedures, and outcome measures—precluded the possibility of conducting a meta-analysis or offering direct statistical comparisons between traditional and advanced approaches. We performed a systematic review to qualitatively synthesize the existing evidence. This limitation has been explicitly addressed in the manuscript's Limitation section to maintain transparency. We have meticulously analyzed the findings to offer significant insights into the trends and possible ramifications of the examined approaches.
----------

The search strategy appears robust, but details on the inclusion/exclusion criteria for studies are insufficient. A clearer explanation of why certain studies were excluded (e.g., irrelevance or quality issues) would enhance transparency.

Response: Thank you for your input. We value your inquiry regarding the criteria for inclusion and exclusion. We wish to highlight that the justifications for study exclusion have already been detailed in Appendix Table 1.
----------

Some sections, particularly the introduction and discussion, are repetitive. Consolidating overlapping points and presenting a more concise narrative will improve readability.

Response: We have carefully reviewed the manuscript and guaranteed that the updated version is more succinct, with superfluous points eliminated, especially in the Introduction and Discussion sections. The revised version now offers a more coherent and concise narrative while preserving the requisite analytical depth. We value your recommendation and assert that these modifications improve the manuscript's general readability.
----------
The inclusion of figures or summary tables (e.g., comparison of complication rates by technique) would better communicate the findings.

Response: To improve clarity and effectively convey our data, we have incorporated Table 2, which presents a comparative summary of complication rates by technique. Nonetheless, owing to the heterogeneity of the data—characterized by discrepancies in study designs, outcome definitions, and patient populations—we were unable to produce a forest plot or do a meta-analysis. The manuscript acknowledges this limitation.
----------
While the PRISMA framework was followed, the authors did not conduct a meta-analysis. If heterogeneity precluded this, it should be explicitly stated and justified in the text.

Response: The manuscript acknowledges this limitation.
----------
The language is generally clear but needs refinement to eliminate redundancy and improve flow. For example, the repeated mention of infection rates and their significance across sections could be consolidated.

Response: The document has been carefully reviewed and the text has been updated to remove redundancy and enhance overall coherence. We have synthesized redundant references to infection rates and their significance to provide a more concise and consistent presentation.
----------
Certain sentences are overly technical, which might hinder accessibility for a broader audience. Simplifying terminology without losing accuracy is recommended.

Response: We have carefully reviewed the manuscript and refined excessively technical sentences to improve readability while preserving scientific precision. We have refined terminology when necessary to maintain accessibility for a wider audience while preserving the integrity of our analysis.
----------

The manuscript lacks a detailed comparison of its findings with those of previous reviews or meta-analyses. Highlighting how this review advances knowledge or contradicts earlier work would enhance its contribution.

Response: To mitigate this risk, we have included citations of prior systematic reviews in the Introduction to contextualize our analysis. Furthermore, we have ensured that our discourse emphasizes how our findings correlate with and enhance the current body of research.
----------

A more robust discussion of study limitations is necessary, particularly concerning variability in patient demographics and differences in surgical expertise, healthcare infrastructure across studies, and retrospective study designs in many included papers.

Response: We have enhanced the Limitations section to offer a more comprehensive analysis of the probable sources of variability in our selected studies. We now examine variations in patient demographics, surgical proficiency, and healthcare infrastructure that may affect the reported outcomes. Furthermore, we recognize the influence of retrospective study designs in numerous included articles and its consequences for data dependability and bias.
----------

Key Recommendations:
Include statistical analyses or at least a detailed qualitative comparison of complication rates.
Streamline the text, especially in sections with overlapping content.
Add summary tables or figures to improve data visualization.
Clarify methodological choices, particularly regarding the heterogeneity of included studies.
Expand on the implications of the findings, both clinical and research-oriented.

Response: I appreciate your valuable suggestions. We have carefully evaluated each point and updated the manuscript accordingly. To fulfill the requirement for statistical or qualitative comparisons, we have presented a comprehensive qualitative comparison of complication rates in Table 2, as a meta-analysis was impracticable due to data heterogeneity. We have refined the language, especially in the Introduction and Discussion, to remove redundancy and enhance clarity. Table 2 has been incorporated to summarize significant findings for improved data presentation; nevertheless, a forest plot could not be produced due to the diversity of the included research. Furthermore, we have elucidated our methodological selections, especially about the influence of sample heterogeneity, in the Methods and Limitations sections. We have broadened the discourse on the clinical and research ramifications of our findings to emphasize their importance and prospective research avenues. We value your astute recommendations, which have enhanced the manuscript.
----------

Suitability for indexing:
The manuscript has potential but requires revisions to strengthen its methodological rigor, depth of analysis, and presentation. With these changes, it could serve as a valuable resource for clinicians and researchers in maxillofacial surgery.
I recommend major revisions prior to indexing.

Response: Thank you for your assessment and insightful feedback. We have carefully revised the manuscript to enhance its methodological rigor, analytical depth, and presentation, in accordance with your recommendations. The modifications have been emphasized in red for your convenience. We anticipate that the improvements align with your expectations and augment the manuscript's utility as a significant resource for physicians and researchers in maxillofacial surgery.
Competing Interests: none Close
Report a concern

Comments on this article Comments (0)

Version 3

VERSION 3 PUBLISHED 09 Dec 2024

Open Peer Review

Reviewer Status

Reviewer Reports

	Invited Reviewers
	1	2	3
Version 3 (revision) 06 Mar 25
Version 2 (revision) 25 Feb 25	read	read
Version 1 09 Dec 24	read	read	read

Mohamed Jaber, Ajman University, Ajman, United Arab Emirates
Mohammad Adhitya Latief, University of Indonesia, Depok, Indonesia
Indra Mulyawan, Airlangga University, Surabaya, Indonesia

Comments on this article

All Comments(0)

Add a comment

Browse by related subjects

Back to all reports

Reviewer Report

4 Views

03 Mar 2025 | for Version 2

Mohammad Adhitya Latief, University of Indonesia, Depok, West Java, Indonesia

4 Views Cite this report Responses(0)

Approved

I appreciate the time and effort you have taken to address my comments and improve the quality of the manuscript. After careful evaluation, I am pleased to inform you that your manuscript has fulfill has fulfilled my request for correction as per my expectation. The revisions have satisfactorily addressed the concerns raised during the review process that I suggested, and no further modifications are required at this stage.

Competing Interests

No competing interests were disclosed.

Reviewer Expertise

trauma and fractures management in oral maxillofacial

I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard.

Respond to this report

Responses (0)

Back to all reports

Reviewer Report

12 Views

26 Feb 2025 | for Version 2

Mohamed Jaber, Ajman University, Ajman, United Arab Emirates

12 Views Cite this report Responses(0)

Approved

I reviewed the modified version of the manuscript, the authors incorporated all my suggestions for improvements, thus I have no further comments to make.
Final recommendation: Approve.

Competing Interests

No competing interests were disclosed.

Reviewer Expertise

Maxillofacial injuries, Oral cancer and precancer, dental education

I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard.

Respond to this report

Responses (0)

Back to all reports

Reviewer Report

11 Views

14 Feb 2025 | for Version 1

Indra Mulyawan, Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Airlangga University, Surabaya, East Java, Indonesia

11 Views Cite this report Responses(1)

Approved

Are the rationale for, and objectives of, the Systematic Review clearly stated?

Yes
Are sufficient details of the methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others?

Yes
Is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate?

Yes
Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results presented in the review?

Yes
If this is a Living Systematic Review, is the ‘living’ method appropriate and is the search schedule clearly defined and justified? (‘Living Systematic Review’ or a variation of this term should be included in the title.)

Yes

Competing Interests

No competing interests were disclosed.

Reviewer Expertise

oral and maxillofacial surgery

I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard.

Respond to this report

Responses (1)

Back to all reports

Reviewer Report

17 Views

22 Jan 2025 | for Version 1

Mohammad Adhitya Latief, University of Indonesia, Depok, West Java, Indonesia

17 Views Cite this report Responses(1)

Approved With Reservations

Power:

Comprehensive Review: The paper systematically reviews complications associated with miniplate insertion in maxillofacial fractures over a decade, providing a broad and updated perspective, as mention on methods that data examined from September 1, 2014, to September 1, 2024.
Diverse Data Sources: It utilizes multiple databases (Cochrane Library, PubMed, Scopus) and includes studies without language constraints, ensuring a wide range of data as mentioned in methods section, data source and searches.
Methodological Rigor: The review follows PRISMA guidelines and employs robust tools (ROBINS-I, Cochrane risk of bias tool) for assessing study quality, enhancing the reliability of findings.
Balanced Study Designs: The inclusion of both interventional and observational studies offers a comprehensive analysis of the phenomena. This distribution represents a balance between experimental and observational research methodologies within the dataset, offering a comprehensive foundation for analyzing the investigated phenomena.
Focus on Novel Techniques: The paper highlights advanced methodologies like 3D plate systems and locking mechanisms, which show promise in reducing complications.

Weakness:

Heterogeneity: The included studies exhibit significant variability in patient demographics, treatment durations, and methodologies, which limits the ability to perform a meta-analysis. One of the example is decision to include the use of miniplate in orthognatic surgery, Because the title is focussing in complication of miniplate in maxillofacial fractures, but the samples used in this research also include miniplate in orthognatic surgery which is very different in outcomes or surgery result.
Lack of Standardization: The absence of standardized outcome measures across studies makes it challenging to compare results directly. Although I cant find table 2 as result in the article, I could tell that it is challenging since there will be differences outcome because the different usage in fracture cases and orthognatic cases
Limited Prospective Data: There is a need for more prospective studies to better understand the long-term effects of miniplate utilization. As mention in article that Additional study utilizing standardized outcomes and prospective designs is essential to enhance comprehension of the long-term effects of miniplate utilization
Potential Bias: Despite using robust tools, the risk of bias in some studies remains unclear, which could affect the overall conclusions. We might correct this by using statistic to eliminate any factor that has potential bias, but unfortunately I cant find any of them in this article.

Are the rationale for, and objectives of, the Systematic Review clearly stated?

Partly
Are sufficient details of the methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others?

No
Is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate?

No
Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results presented in the review?

Partly
If this is a Living Systematic Review, is the ‘living’ method appropriate and is the search schedule clearly defined and justified? (‘Living Systematic Review’ or a variation of this term should be included in the title.)

Not applicable

Competing Interests

No competing interests were disclosed.

Reviewer Expertise

trauma and fractures management in oral maxillofacial

Respond to this report

Responses (1)

Author Response

25 Feb 2025

bramasto purbo sejati, Departemnt of Oral and maxillofacial Surgery, Universitas Gadjah Mada, Yogyakarta, 55284, Indonesia

Reviewer 2:
Power:
Comprehensive Review: The paper systematically reviews complications associated with miniplate insertion in maxillofacial fractures over a decade, providing a broad and updated perspective, as mention on methods that data examined from September 1, 2014, to September 1, 2024.
Diverse Data Sources: It utilizes multiple databases (Cochrane Library, PubMed, Scopus) and includes studies without language constraints, ensuring a wide range of data as mentioned in methods section, data source and searches.
Methodological Rigor: The review follows PRISMA guidelines and employs robust tools (ROBINS-I, Cochrane risk of bias tool) for assessing study quality, enhancing the reliability of findings.
Balanced Study Designs: The inclusion of both interventional and observational studies offers a comprehensive analysis of the phenomena. This distribution represents a balance between experimental and observational research methodologies within the dataset, offering a comprehensive foundation for analyzing the investigated phenomena.
Focus on Novel Techniques: The paper highlights advanced methodologies like 3D plate systems and locking mechanisms, which show promise in reducing complications.
Response: Thank you for your review and acknowledgment.

Weakness:
Heterogeneity: The included studies exhibit significant variability in patient demographics, treatment durations, and methodologies, which limits the ability to perform a meta-analysis. One of the example is decision to include the use of miniplate in orthognatic surgery, Because the title is focussing in complication of miniplate in maxillofacial fractures, but the samples used in this research also include miniplate in orthognatic surgery which is very different in outcomes or surgery result.
Response: Thank you for review. We acknowledge this in our limitation of study.

Lack of Standardization: The absence of standardized outcome measures across studies makes it challenging to compare results directly. Although I cant find table 2 as result in the article, I could tell that it is challenging since there will be differences outcome because the different usage in fracture cases and orthognatic cases
Response: We agree with your suggestion. Due to the significant heterogeneity of the included studies, we were unable to conduct a meta-analysis; therefore, we can only perform a systematic review.

Limited Prospective Data: There is a need for more prospective studies to better understand the long-term effects of miniplate utilization. As mention in article that Additional study utilizing standardized outcomes and prospective designs is essential to enhance comprehension of the long-term effects of miniplate utilization
Response: We acknowledge this as the limitation of the study.

Potential Bias: Despite using robust tools, the risk of bias in some studies remains unclear, which could affect the overall conclusions. We might correct this by using statistic to eliminate any factor that has potential bias, but unfortunately I cant find any of them in this article.
Response: We utilize the risk of bias assessment tool based on the Joanna Briggs Institute assessment scale. According to the grading scale, we cannot draw an overall conclusion; instead, we will categorize each item with responses of “yes,” “no,” and “unclear.”

Overall, the paper provides valuable insights but also highlights the need for more standardized and prospective research to fully understand the implications of miniplate insertion in maxillofacial fractures. However, In my opinion the article provides a comprehensive exploration of the role and applications of miniplates in craniofacial surgery and Oral and maxillofacial field procedures. It delves into their potential complications, offering insights into their effectiveness in stabilizing fractures, facilitating orthodontic surgery, and supporting reconstructive surgeries. This article broadens our understanding of miniplate application, guiding clinicians in selecting appropriate systems and optimizing outcomes. By addressing both benefits and limitations, it serves as a valuable resource for advancing knowledge in the field and improving patient care.
Response: We sincerely appreciate the reviewer’s favorable remarks and perceptive recommendations. In accordance with the given comments, we have meticulously revised the manuscript to improve clarity and coherence.

View more View less

Competing Interests

none

Back to all reports

Reviewer Report

23 Views

16 Jan 2025 | for Version 1

Mohamed Jaber, Ajman University, Ajman, United Arab Emirates

23 Views Cite this report Responses(1)

Not Approved

The manuscript reviews ten years of data on complications following miniplate insertion, providing valuable insights into trends and advanced methodologies.
The focus on novel techniques such as 3D plate systems highlights advancements with potential to reduce complications.
The authors adhere to PRISMA guidelines and employ robust tools like the ROBINS-I and Cochrane risk of bias tools to evaluate study quality.
The discussion emphasizes the need for standardized outcomes and prospective studies, which is vital for advancing clinical practices.

Limitations and Suggestions for Improvement:

The results and discussion sections could benefit from deeper statistical and comparative analyses. For example: provide quantitative comparisons between traditional and advanced methodologies. Detail the statistical significance of the findings related to complication rates.
The search strategy appears robust, but details on the inclusion/exclusion criteria for studies are insufficient. A clearer explanation of why certain studies were excluded (e.g., irrelevance or quality issues) would enhance transparency.
Some sections, particularly the introduction and discussion, are repetitive. Consolidating overlapping points and presenting a more concise narrative will improve readability.
The inclusion of figures or summary tables (e.g., comparison of complication rates by technique) would better communicate the findings.
While the PRISMA framework was followed, the authors did not conduct a meta-analysis. If heterogeneity precluded this, it should be explicitly stated and justified in the text.
The language is generally clear but needs refinement to eliminate redundancy and improve flow. For example, the repeated mention of infection rates and their significance across sections could be consolidated.
Certain sentences are overly technical, which might hinder accessibility for a broader audience. Simplifying terminology without losing accuracy is recommended.
The manuscript lacks a detailed comparison of its findings with those of previous reviews or meta-analyses. Highlighting how this review advances knowledge or contradicts earlier work would enhance its contribution.
A more robust discussion of study limitations is necessary, particularly concerning variability in patient demographics and differences in surgical expertise, healthcare infrastructure across studies, and retrospective study designs in many included papers.

Key Recommendations:

Include statistical analyses or at least a detailed qualitative comparison of complication rates.
Streamline the text, especially in sections with overlapping content.
Add summary tables or figures to improve data visualization.
Clarify methodological choices, particularly regarding the heterogeneity of included studies.
Expand on the implications of the findings, both clinical and research-oriented.

Are the rationale for, and objectives of, the Systematic Review clearly stated?

Yes
Are sufficient details of the methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others?

Partly
Is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate?

Partly
Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results presented in the review?

Partly
If this is a Living Systematic Review, is the ‘living’ method appropriate and is the search schedule clearly defined and justified? (‘Living Systematic Review’ or a variation of this term should be included in the title.)

Not applicable

Competing Interests

No competing interests were disclosed.

Reviewer Expertise

Maxillofacial injuries, Oral cancer and precancer, dental education

Respond to this report

Responses (1)

Author Response

28 Feb 2025

bramasto purbo sejati, Departemnt of Oral and maxillofacial Surgery, Universitas Gadjah Mada, Yogyakarta, 55284, Indonesia

Reviewer 1:
Review Report for Manuscript Submitted to F1000Research
Title: Complications following miniplate insertion in maxillofacial fractures: A systematic review.
The manuscript is relevant to the field of maxillofacial surgery and explores an important area: complications associated with miniplate insertion. It aligns with the interests of F1000Research, particularly in presenting evidence-based insights useful for clinical practice. However, significant improvements are required for it to meet the journal's standards of rigor and clarity.
Key findings
The manuscript reviews ten years of data on complications following miniplate insertion, providing valuable insights into trends and advanced methodologies.
The focus on novel techniques such as 3D plate systems highlights advancements with potential to reduce complications.
The authors adhere to PRISMA guidelines and employ robust tools like the ROBINS-I and Cochrane risk of bias tools to evaluate study quality.
The discussion emphasizes the need for standardized outcomes and prospective studies, which is vital for advancing clinical practices.

Response: Thank you for your insightful assessment and constructive recommendations. We value your acknowledgment of the manuscript's significance to maxillofacial surgery and its prospective impact on clinical practice.
----------

Limitations and Suggestions for Improvement:
The results and discussion sections could benefit from deeper statistical and comparative analyses. For example: provide quantitative comparisons between traditional and advanced methodologies. Detail the statistical significance of the findings related to complication rates.

Response: Thank you for your insightful feedback. We recognize the significance of comprehensive statistical and comparative analysis. Nonetheless, the heterogeneity of the included studies—characterized by differences in research design, patient demographics, intervention procedures, and outcome measures—precluded the possibility of conducting a meta-analysis or offering direct statistical comparisons between traditional and advanced approaches. We performed a systematic review to qualitatively synthesize the existing evidence. This limitation has been explicitly addressed in the manuscript's Limitation section to maintain transparency. We have meticulously analyzed the findings to offer significant insights into the trends and possible ramifications of the examined approaches.
----------

The search strategy appears robust, but details on the inclusion/exclusion criteria for studies are insufficient. A clearer explanation of why certain studies were excluded (e.g., irrelevance or quality issues) would enhance transparency.

Response: Thank you for your input. We value your inquiry regarding the criteria for inclusion and exclusion. We wish to highlight that the justifications for study exclusion have already been detailed in Appendix Table 1.
----------

Some sections, particularly the introduction and discussion, are repetitive. Consolidating overlapping points and presenting a more concise narrative will improve readability.

Response: We have carefully reviewed the manuscript and guaranteed that the updated version is more succinct, with superfluous points eliminated, especially in the Introduction and Discussion sections. The revised version now offers a more coherent and concise narrative while preserving the requisite analytical depth. We value your recommendation and assert that these modifications improve the manuscript's general readability.
----------
The inclusion of figures or summary tables (e.g., comparison of complication rates by technique) would better communicate the findings.

Response: To improve clarity and effectively convey our data, we have incorporated Table 2, which presents a comparative summary of complication rates by technique. Nonetheless, owing to the heterogeneity of the data—characterized by discrepancies in study designs, outcome definitions, and patient populations—we were unable to produce a forest plot or do a meta-analysis. The manuscript acknowledges this limitation.
----------
While the PRISMA framework was followed, the authors did not conduct a meta-analysis. If heterogeneity precluded this, it should be explicitly stated and justified in the text.

Response: The manuscript acknowledges this limitation.
----------
The language is generally clear but needs refinement to eliminate redundancy and improve flow. For example, the repeated mention of infection rates and their significance across sections could be consolidated.

Response: The document has been carefully reviewed and the text has been updated to remove redundancy and enhance overall coherence. We have synthesized redundant references to infection rates and their significance to provide a more concise and consistent presentation.
----------
Certain sentences are overly technical, which might hinder accessibility for a broader audience. Simplifying terminology without losing accuracy is recommended.

Response: We have carefully reviewed the manuscript and refined excessively technical sentences to improve readability while preserving scientific precision. We have refined terminology when necessary to maintain accessibility for a wider audience while preserving the integrity of our analysis.
----------

The manuscript lacks a detailed comparison of its findings with those of previous reviews or meta-analyses. Highlighting how this review advances knowledge or contradicts earlier work would enhance its contribution.

Response: To mitigate this risk, we have included citations of prior systematic reviews in the Introduction to contextualize our analysis. Furthermore, we have ensured that our discourse emphasizes how our findings correlate with and enhance the current body of research.
----------

A more robust discussion of study limitations is necessary, particularly concerning variability in patient demographics and differences in surgical expertise, healthcare infrastructure across studies, and retrospective study designs in many included papers.

Response: We have enhanced the Limitations section to offer a more comprehensive analysis of the probable sources of variability in our selected studies. We now examine variations in patient demographics, surgical proficiency, and healthcare infrastructure that may affect the reported outcomes. Furthermore, we recognize the influence of retrospective study designs in numerous included articles and its consequences for data dependability and bias.
----------

Key Recommendations:
Include statistical analyses or at least a detailed qualitative comparison of complication rates.
Streamline the text, especially in sections with overlapping content.
Add summary tables or figures to improve data visualization.
Clarify methodological choices, particularly regarding the heterogeneity of included studies.
Expand on the implications of the findings, both clinical and research-oriented.

Response: I appreciate your valuable suggestions. We have carefully evaluated each point and updated the manuscript accordingly. To fulfill the requirement for statistical or qualitative comparisons, we have presented a comprehensive qualitative comparison of complication rates in Table 2, as a meta-analysis was impracticable due to data heterogeneity. We have refined the language, especially in the Introduction and Discussion, to remove redundancy and enhance clarity. Table 2 has been incorporated to summarize significant findings for improved data presentation; nevertheless, a forest plot could not be produced due to the diversity of the included research. Furthermore, we have elucidated our methodological selections, especially about the influence of sample heterogeneity, in the Methods and Limitations sections. We have broadened the discourse on the clinical and research ramifications of our findings to emphasize their importance and prospective research avenues. We value your astute recommendations, which have enhanced the manuscript.
----------

Suitability for indexing:
The manuscript has potential but requires revisions to strengthen its methodological rigor, depth of analysis, and presentation. With these changes, it could serve as a valuable resource for clinicians and researchers in maxillofacial surgery.
I recommend major revisions prior to indexing.

Response: Thank you for your assessment and insightful feedback. We have carefully revised the manuscript to enhance its methodological rigor, analytical depth, and presentation, in accordance with your recommendations. The modifications have been emphasized in red for your convenience. We anticipate that the improvements align with your expectations and augment the manuscript's utility as a significant resource for physicians and researchers in maxillofacial surgery.

View more View less

Competing Interests

none

Alongside their report, reviewers assign a status to the article:

Approved - the paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested

Approved with reservations - A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit.

Not approved - fundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions

[1] 1. Shukla AD: Epidemiology of maxillofacial injuries during monsoon and non-monsoon season in India: a data-based retrospective study from a tertiary care dental teaching hospital. F1000Res. 2023; 12. Publisher Full Text

[2] 2. Bataineh AB: The incidence and patterns of maxillofacial fractures and associated head and neck injuries. J. Craniofac. Surg. 2024; 52(5): 543–547.

[3] 3. Meisgeier A: Epidemiologic Trends in Maxillofacial Trauma Surgery in Germany—Insights from the National DRG Database 2005–2022. J. Clin. Med. 2024; 13(15). PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[4] 4. Deininger C: Enhancing Cranio-Maxillofacial Fracture Care in Low-and Middle-Income Countries: A Systematic Review. J. Clin. Med. 2024; 13(8): 2437. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[5] 5. Chen C-H: The use of miniplate osteosynthesis for skeletal anchorage. Plast. Reconstr. Surg. 2007; 120(1): 232–235. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[6] 6. Hourfar J, Kanavakis G, Goellner P, et al.: Fully customized placement of orthodontic miniplates: a novel clinical technique. Head Face Med. 2014; 10: 1–7. Publisher Full Text

[7] 7. Kang N, Pratt A, Burr N: Miniplate fixation for avulsion injuries of the flexor digitorum profundus insertion. J. Hand Surg. 2003; 28(4): 363–368. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[8] 8. Sobti N: Mini-plate versus reconstruction bar fixation for oncologic mandibular reconstruction with free fibula flaps: A systematic review and meta-analysis. J. Plast. Reconstr. Aesthet. Surg. 2022; 75(8): 2691–2701. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[9] 9. Jaber M: Reasons for removal of miniplates used in fixation of maxillofacial bone fractures: systematic review and meta-analysis. Appl. Sci. 2023; 13(21): 11899. Publisher Full Text

[10] 10. Kuna SK, Jain A, Kuna V: Two Miniplates Versus Three Dimensional Plate in Management of Mandibular Condylar Fractures: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Craniomaxillofac. Trauma Reconstr. 2024; 19433875241252979. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[11] 11. Maraolo AE: Una bussola per le revisioni sistematiche: la versione italiana della nuova edizione del PRISMA statement. BMJ. 2021; 372: n71.

[12] 12. Higgins JP: Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions. John Wiley & Sons; 2019.

[13] 13. Higgins JP: Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions version 5.0. 1. The Cochrane Collaboration.Reference Source2008.

[14] 14. Munn Z: Systematic reviews of prevalence and incidence. Joanna Briggs Institute reviewer’s manual Adelaide, South Australia: The Joanna Briggs Institute. 2017; 5: 1–5.

[15] 15. Adhikari M: Fixation of subcondylar fractures of the mandible: a randomized clinical trial comparing one trapezoidal plate with two miniplates. Int. J. Oral Maxillofac. Surg. 2021; 50(6): 756–762. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[16] 16. Agarwal M: A Prospective Randomized Clinical Trial Comparing 3D and Standard Miniplates in Treatment of Mandibular Symphysis and Parasymphysis Fractures. Journal of Maxillofacial and Oral Surgery. 2014; 13(2): 79–83. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[17] 17. Aggarwal S: Comparison of 3D plate and locking plate in treatment of mandibular fracture-a clinical study. Oral Maxillofac. Surg. 2017; 21(4): 383–390. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[18] 18. Agnihotri A, Prabhu S, Thomas S: A comparative analysis of the efficacy of cortical screws as lag screws and miniplates for internal fixation of mandibular symphyseal region fractures: A randomized prospective study. Int. J. Oral Maxillofac. Surg. 2014; 43(1): 22–28. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[19] 19. Al-Moraissi EA, Mounair RM, El-Sharkawy TM, et al.: Comparison between three-dimensional and standard miniplates in the management of mandibular angle fractures: A prospective, randomized, double-blind, controlled clinical study. Int. J. Oral Maxillofac. Surg. 2015; 44(3): 316–321. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[20] 20. Amjad S, Ansari MDK, Ahmad SS, et al.: Comparative study of outcomes between locking plates and three-dimensional plates in mandibular fractures. National Journal of Maxillofacial Surgery. 2020; 11(2): 263–269. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[21] 21. Bhadauria Fernandes T, Dhupar V, Akkara F, et al.: Efficiency of the 2-mm Titanium Lambda Plate for Open Reduction and Internal Fixation of Subcondylar Fractures of the Mandible: A Prospective Clinical Study. Journal of Maxillofacial and Oral Surgery. 2022; 21(2): 379–385. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[22] 22. Bhagat MJA: Application of Anatomically Designed 2-Dimensional V Plate in Management of Mandible Fracture: A Pilot Study. Journal of Maxillofacial and Oral Surgery. 2022; 21(4): 1363–1368. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[23] 23. Bhatt K: Retrospective study of mandibular angle fractures treated with three different fixation systems. Natl J Maxillofac Surg. 2015; 6(1): 31–36. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[24] 24. Bohner L: Treatment of Mandible Fractures Using a Miniplate System: A Retrospective Analysis. J. Clin. Med. 2020; 9(9). PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[25] 25. Burkhard JPM: Clinical results of two different three-dimensional titanium plates in the treatment of condylar neck and base fractures: A retrospective study. J. Craniofac. Surg. 2020; 48(8): 756–764. Publisher Full Text

[26] 26. Camino Junior R, Moraes RB, Landes C, et al.: Comparison of a 2.0-mm locking system with conventional 2.0- and 2.4-mm systems in the treatment of mandibular fractures: a randomized controlled trial. Oral Maxillofac. Surg. 2017; 21(3): 327–334. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[27] 27. Daif ET: Correlation of plates’ number with complications of osteosynthesis in mandibular fractures. J. Craniofac. Surg. 2014; 25(6): e526–e529. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[28] 28. Dediol E, Čvrljević I, Dobranić M, et al.: Comparative study between lag screw and miniplate fixation for straight midline mandibular osteotomy. Int. J. Oral Maxillofac. Surg. 2014; 43(4): 399–404. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[29] 29. Fani M: Is mini-plate removal necessary for oral and maxillofacial surgery patients? A five-year case-control study. Frontiers in Dentistry. 2020; 17. Publisher Full Text

[30] 30. Ferrari R: Complication rate in mandibular angle fractures—one vs. two plates: a 12-year retrospective analysis. Oral Maxillofac. Surg. 2018; 22(4): 435–441. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[31] 31. Gamit M: Comparison of bite force evaluation for mandibular angle fracture fixation by conventional miniplates versus new design miniplates: a clinical study. Oral Maxillofac. Surg. 2024; 28(2): 645–652. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[32] 32. García Carricondo AR: A comparative study between traditional fixation with miniplates and modified lag screws for the treatment of mandibular fractures. Clin. Oral Investig. 2018; 22(3): 1503–1511. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[33] 33. Ghezta NK, Bhardwaj Y, Rani P, et al.: Efficacy of Retromandibular Transparotid Approach for the Management of Extracapsular Subcondylar Mandibular Fractures Using 2-mm Titanium Miniplates: A Prospective Clinical Study. J. Oral Maxillofac. Surg. 2016; 74(8): 1613–1621. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[34] 34. Graillon N: Do mandibular miniplates increase the risk of complex fracture in facial trauma recurrence? Case series. J. Craniofac. Surg. 2021; 49(7): 613–619.

[35] 35. Kanubaddy SR: Management of Mandibular Angle Fractures: Single Stainless Steel Linear Miniplate Versus Rectangular Grid Plate—A Prospective Randomised Study. Journal of Maxillofacial and Oral Surgery. 2016; 15(4): 535–541. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[36] 36. Kaushik S, Ali I, Dubey M, et al.: 2 mm conventional miniplates with three-dimensional strut plate in mandibular fractures. Annals of Maxillofacial Surgery. 2020; 10(1): 10–15. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[37] 37. Kerdoud O, Aloua R, Kaouani A, et al.: Management of mandibular angle fractures through single and two mini-plate fixation systems: Retrospective study of 112 cases. Int. J. Surg. Case Rep. 2021; 80: 105690. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[38] 38. Khan M: Comparative Evaluation of 3d Locking Versus Non-Locking Titanium Miniplates in the Treatment of Mandibular Fracture. Indian J. Otolaryngol. Head Neck Surg. 2020; 72(3): 363–369. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[39] 39. Khandelwal P: Miniplate removal in operated cases of maxillofacial region in a dental institute in Rajasthan, India. Medicine and Pharmacy Reports. 2019; 92(4): 393–400. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[40] 40. Kreutzer K: Patient-specific 3D-printed mini-versus reconstruction plates for free flap fixation at the mandible: Retrospective study of clinical outcomes and complication rates. J. Craniofac. Surg. 2023; 51(10): 621–628. Publisher Full Text

[41] 41. Kumar S: Treatment Outcome Comparison Between two 3-Dimensional Plates (Y-Shaped Plate Versus Trapezoidal Condylar Plate) in Management of Mandible Condylar Fracture: A Randomized Control Trial. Journal of Maxillofacial and Oral Surgery. 2023; 22(1): 25–32. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[42] 42. Mannan R, Farooq A, Mukhtar H: Comparison of single vs double miniplates in the management of mandibular angle fractures. Pakistan Journal of Medical and Health Sciences. 2018; 12(2): 662–664.

[43] 43. Mathew N: The Efficacy of Fixation of Unilateral Mandibular Angle Fracture with Single 3D Plate vs Single Miniplate Using Transbuccal Approach. Journal of Maxillofacial and Oral Surgery. 2022; 21(2): 405–412. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[44] 44. Mishra N: 3-D Miniplates Versus Conventional Miniplates in Treatment of Mandible Fractures. Journal of Maxillofacial and Oral Surgery. 2019; 18(1): 65–72. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[45] 45. Mondal S: Comparative Evaluation between Single Noncompression Miniplate and Two Noncompression Miniplates in the Treatment of Mandibular Angle Fractures. Craniomaxillofac. Trauma Reconstr. 2019; 12(2): 122–127. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[46] 46. Pfister J, Shazwani FN, Müller M, et al.: Clinical results of two different three-dimensional plate types for the treatment of mandibular angle fractures: a retrospective analysis. Oral Maxillofac. Surg. 2024; 28: 1501–1507. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[47] 47. Rahpeyma A, Khajehahmadi S, Barkhori Mehni S: Treatment of mandibular fractures by two perpendicular mini-plates. Iran J Otorhinolaryngol. 2014; 26(74): 31–36. PubMed Abstract

[48] 48. Rai A, Jain A, Datarkar A: Comparison of single versus two non-compression miniplates in the management of unfavourable angle fracture of the mandible: a prospective randomized clinical study. Oral Maxillofac. Surg. 2018; 22(2): 157–161. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[49] 49. Rai A, Jain A, Thukral R: Two miniplates versus 3-dimensional plate in the management of mandibular subcondylar fractures: a retrospective analysis. Oral Maxillofac. Surg. 2021; 25(4): 457–461. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[50] 50. Ribeiro-Junior PD: Mandibular angle fractures treated with a single miniplate without postoperative maxillomandibular fixation: A retrospective evaluation of 50 patients. Cranio - Journal of Craniomandibular Practice. 2018; 36(4): 234–242. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[51] 51. Saha R: A comparison between locking plates and miniplates in fixation of mandibular fractures. Biomedical and Pharmacology Journal. 2015; 8: 799–804. Publisher Full Text

[52] 52. Sakong Y, Kim YH, Chung KJ: Analysis of Complication in Mandibular Angle Fracture: Champy Technique Versus Rigid Fixation. J. Craniofac. Surg. 2021; 32(8): 2732–2735. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[53] 53. Sarepally G: A Comparative Evaluation of 2.0mm Two-Dimensional Miniplates Versus 2.0mm Three-Dimensional Miniplates in Mandibular Fractures. Cureus. 2022; 14(1): e21325. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[54] 54. Sehgal S, Ramanujam L, Prasad K, et al.: Three-dimensional v/s standard titanium miniplate fixation in the management of mandibular fractures - A randomized clinical study. J. Craniofac. Surg. 2014; 42(7): 1292–1299.

[55] 55. Shaik M, Subba Raju T, Rao NK, et al.: Effectiveness of 2.0 mm Standard and 2.0 mm Locking Miniplates in Management of Mandibular Fractures: A Clinical Comparative Study. Journal of Maxillofacial and Oral Surgery. 2014; 13(1): 47–52. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[56] 56. Sikora M, Chęciński M, Sielski M, et al.: The use of 3d titanium miniplates in surgical treatment of patients with condylar fractures. J. Clin. Med. 2020; 9(9): 1–13.

[57] 57. Singh A, Arunkumar KV: Standard 3D Titanium Miniplate Versus Locking 3D Miniplate in Fracture of Mandible: A Prospective Comparative Study. Journal of Maxillofacial and Oral Surgery. 2016; 15(2): 164–172. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[58] 58. Singh R: Comparative evaluation of 2D miniplates and 3D miniplates fixation in mandibular angle fracture - A clinical study. Indian J. Dent. Res. 2020; 31(1): 134–137. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[59] 59. Singh R: A comparative assessment of the management of mandibular angle fractures using 3D plates and 2D mini plates. J. Contemp. Dent. Pract. 2020; 21(4): 400–403. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[60] 60. Spinelli G: Management of Mandibular Angle Fractures by Two Conventional 2.0-mm Miniplates: A Retrospective Study of 389 Patients. Craniomaxillofac. Trauma Reconstr. 2016; 9(3): 206–210. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[61] 61. Sukegawa S: Which fixation methods are better between three-dimensional anatomical plate and two miniplates for the mandibular subcondylar fracture open treatment? J. Craniofac. Surg. 2019; 47(5): 771–777. Publisher Full Text

[62] 62. Sukegawa S: A retrospective comparative study of mandibular fracture treatment with internal fixation using reconstruction plate versus miniplates. J. Craniofac. Surg. 2019; 47(8): 1175–1180.

[63] 63. Sukegawa S: Maxillofacial Trauma Surgery Patients With Titanium Osteosynthesis Miniplates: Remove or Not? J. Craniofac. Surg. 2020; 31(5): 1338–1342. Publisher Full Text

[64] 64. Sweta S: Efficacy of Locking Miniplates in Managing Mandibular Fractures without Intermaxillary Fixation. J. Pharm. Bioallied Sci. 2022; 14(Suppl 1): S131–s134. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[65] 65. Tiwari M, Meshram V, Lambade P, et al.: Titanium Lag Screw Versus Miniplate Fixation in the Treatment of Anterior Mandibular Fractures. J. Oral Maxillofac. Surg. 2019; 77(5): 1031–1039. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[66] 66. Vishal: Significance of Microbial Analysis during Removal of Miniplates at Infected Sites in the Craniomaxillofacial Region - An Evaluative Study. Ann Maxillofac Surg. 2020; 10(2): 330–334. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[67] 67. Yadav S: Conventional 2D miniplate versus 3D four-holed and eight-holed miniplates in the management of mandibular angle fractures. Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Medicine, and Pathology. 2020; 32(5): 336–341. Publisher Full Text

[68] 68. Yang L, Patil PM: Comparative evaluation of 2.0 mm locking plate system vs 2.0 mm non-locking plate system for mandibular angle fracture fixation: A prospective randomized study. Eur. Rev. Med. Pharmacol. Sci. 2015; 19(4): 552–556. PubMed Abstract

[69] 69. Palani T: Evaluation of 3D trapezoidal plates in open reduction and internal fixation of subcondylar fractures of mandible: a clinical trial. Cureus. 2021; 13(6). Publisher Full Text

[70] 70. Vashistha A: Comparison of 2 mm single locking miniplates versus 2 mm two non-locking miniplates in symphysis and parasymphysis fracture of mandible. journal of oral biology and craniofacial research. 2017; 7(1): 42–48. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[71] 71. Jaber M, Abouseif N, Hassan M, et al.: Risk Factors Contributing to Symptomatic Miniplate Removal following Orthognathic Surgery: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. J. Clin. Med. 2024; 13(11): 3335. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[72] 72. Faber J, et al.: Infection predictive factors with orthodontic anchorage miniplates. Seminars in Orthodontics. Elsevier; 2018.

[73] 73. Prajapati V, Shahi AK, Prakash O: Significance of microbial analysis during removal of miniplates at infected sites in the craniomaxillofacial region-an evaluative study. Annals of Maxillofacial Surgery. 2020; 10(2): 330–334. Publisher Full Text

[74] 74. Bhatt V, Motiwale T, Mitra GV: Evaluation of the efficacy of Three-dimensional mini plates versus conventional mini plates used in the management of anterior mandibular fractures. IP Indian Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Research. 2023; 8(3): 198–208. Publisher Full Text

[75] 75. Bohner L: Treatment of mandible fractures using a miniplate system: A retrospective analysis. J. Clin. Med. 2020; 9(09): 2922. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[76] 76. Kreutzer K: Patient-specific 3D-printed miniplates for free flap fixation at the mandible: A feasibility study. Front. Surg. 2022; 9: 778371. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[77] 77. Sadhwani BS, Khokhar M: Versatility of various 3D non locking miniplates in treatment of mandibular fractures. International Journal of Orthopaedics. 2022; 8(3): 85–87.

[78] 78. Adhyastha: Supplementary Data. Zenodo. 11 Nov. 2024.

[79] 79. adhyastha: characteristics of included study. [Data set]. Zenodo. 2024. Publisher Full Text

Complications following miniplate insertion in maxillofacial fractures: a systematic review

Abstract

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Keywords

Revised Amendments from Version 2

Introduction

Methods

Data Sources and Searches

Table 1. Search strategy.

Study Selection

Data Extraction

Descriptions of outcome Measures

Risk of Bias Assessment

Data Synthesis and Analysis

Results

Search Result

Figure 1. PRISMA flow diagram.

Study Characteristics

Risk of Bias Assessment of Included Studies

Table 3. Risk of bias RoB 1.0.

Table 4. Risk of bias checklist for prevalence studies.

Discussion

Conclusion and implications

Author contributions

Ethics and consent

Data availability

Acknowledgement

References

Comments on this article Comments (0)

Open Peer Review

Comments on this article Comments (0)

Open Peer Review

Reviewer Status

Reviewer Reports

Comments on this article

Browse by related subjects

Competing Interests Policy

Stay Updated