ArticleArchives of craniofacial surgery2024
Usability testing of a novel interlocking three-dimensional miniplate for mandibular angle fractures.
Article in Archives of craniofacial surgery, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundWe developed a novel interlocking three-dimensional (3D) miniplate design with an adjustable configuration. As this device is new, surgeons must become familiar with its application. This study evaluated the usability and learning curves associated with the novel interlocking 3D miniplate for mandibular fracture fixation.
methodsThe study participants, nine plastic surgeons, were asked to apply an interlocking 3D miniplate and a standard miniplate to polyurethane mandible models. The participants had completed the Basic Craniomaxillofacial Osteosynthesis course during residency and had operated on craniomaxillofacial fractures within the past 5 years. They were instructed to place the interlocking 3D miniplate three times and the standard miniplate once. We assessed the time required for implant placement, the comfort level of the surgeons, and the biomechanical stability of the plates. Biomechanical testing was conducted by subjecting the mandible to forces ranging from 10 to 90 N and the displacement was measured.
resultsThe results indicate increasing comfort with each attempt at placing the interlocking 3D miniplate, with a significant difference between the first and third attempts. Additionally, a reduction in application time was noted with repeated attempts, suggesting improved efficiency. Biomechanical tests showed comparable stability between the tested plates.
conclusionMultiple attempts at applying the interlocking 3D miniplate resulted in increased comfort and reduced application time. These findings indicate that, despite its novelty, the interlocking 3D miniplate is relatively straightforward to apply and has a short learning curve. However, surgeons must have specific qualifications to ensure proper training and minimize errors during placement.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.