Treatment for Adult Mandibular Condylar Process Fractures: A Network Meta-Analysis of Randomized Clinical Trials

Purpose Using network meta-analyses (NMA) has become increasingly valuable as it enables the comparison of interventions that have not been directly compared in a clinical trial. To date, there has not been a NMA of randomized clinical trials (RCT) that compares all types of treatments for mandibular condylar process fractures (MCPFs). The aim of this NMA was to compare and rank all the available methods used in the treatment of MCPFs. Methods Following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines, a systematic search was conducted in 3 major databases up to January 2023 to retrieve RCTs that compared various closed and open treatment methods for MCPFs. The predictor variable is treatment techniques: arch bars (ABs) + wire maxillomandibular fixation (MMF), rigid MMF with intermaxillary fixation screws, AB + functional therapy with elastic guidance (AB functional treatment), AB rigid MMF/functional treatment, single miniplate, double miniplate, lambda miniplate, rhomboid plate, and trapezoidal miniplate. Postoperative complications were the outcome variables and included occlusion, mobility, and pain, among other things. Risk ratio (RR) and standardized mean difference were calculated. Version 2 of the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool and Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations system were used to determine the certainty of the results. Results The NMA included a total of 10,259 patients from 29 RCTs. At ≤6 months, the NMA revealed that the use of 2-miniplates significantly reduced malocclusion compared to rigid MMF (RR = 2.93; confidence interval [CI]: 1.79 to 4.81; very low quality) and functional treatment (RR = 2.36; CI: 1.07 to 5.23; low quality).Further, at ≥6 months, 2-miniplates resulted in significantly lower malocclusion compared to rigid MMF with functional treatment (RR = 3.67; CI: 1.93 to 6.99; very low quality).Trapezoidal plate and AB functional treatment were ranked as the best options in 3-dimensional (3D) plates and closed groups, respectively.3D-miniplates (very low-quality evidence) were ranked as the most effective treatment for reducing postoperative malocclusion and improving mandibular functions after MCPFs, followed closely by double miniplates (moderate quality evidence). Conclusions This NMA found no substantial difference in functional outcomes between using 2-miniplates versus 3D-miniplates to treat MCPFs (low evidence).However, 2-miniplates led to better outcomes than closed treatment (moderate evidence).Additionally, 3D-miniplates produced better outcomes for lateral excursions, protrusive movements, and occlusion than closed treatment at ≤6 months (very low evidence). Using network meta-analyses (NMA) has become increasingly valuable as it enables the comparison of interventions that have not been directly compared in a clinical trial. To date, there has not been a NMA of randomized clinical trials (RCT) that compares all types of treatments for mandibular condylar process fractures (MCPFs). The aim of this NMA was to compare and rank all the available methods used in the treatment of MCPFs. Following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines, a systematic search was conducted in 3 major databases up to January 2023 to retrieve RCTs that compared various closed and open treatment methods for MCPFs. The predictor variable is treatment techniques: arch bars (ABs) + wire maxillomandibular fixation (MMF), rigid MMF with intermaxillary fixation screws, AB + functional therapy with elastic guidance (AB functional treatment), AB rigid MMF/functional treatment, single miniplate, double miniplate, lambda miniplate, rhomboid plate, and trapezoidal miniplate. Postoperative complications were the outcome variables and included occlusion, mobility, and pain, among other things. Risk ratio (RR) and standardized mean difference were calculated. Version 2 of the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool and Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations system were used to determine the certainty of the results. The NMA included a total of 10,259 patients from 29 RCTs. At ≤6 months, the NMA revealed that the use of 2-miniplates significantly reduced malocclusion compared to rigid MMF (RR = 2.93; confidence interval [CI]: 1.79 to 4.81; very low quality) and functional treatment (RR = 2.36; CI: 1.07 to 5.23; low quality).Further, at ≥6 months, 2-miniplates resulted in significantly lower malocclusion compared to rigid MMF with functional treatment (RR = 3.67; CI: 1.93 to 6.99; very low quality).Trapezoidal plate and AB functional treatment were ranked as the best options in 3-dimensional (3D) plates and closed groups, respectively.3D-miniplates (very low-quality evidence) were ranked as the most effective treatment for reducing postoperative malocclusion and improving mandibular functions after MCPFs, followed closely by double miniplates (moderate quality evidence). This NMA found no substantial difference in functional outcomes between using 2-miniplates versus 3D-miniplates to treat MCPFs (low evidence).However, 2-miniplates led to better outcomes than closed treatment (moderate evidence).Additionally, 3D-miniplates produced better outcomes for lateral excursions, protrusive movements, and occlusion than closed treatment at ≤6 months (very low evidence).