Meta-analysis of poly-<i>L</i>-lactide material treatment for mandibular fractures _West China Medical Journal

Authors：

YI Pinshi ^1,1 ,  QIU Lihua ^2,2 , HU Chengchen ^3,3 , REN Wei ^3,3

1. Chongqing Key Laboratory for Oral Diseases and Biomedical Sciences, Chongqing 401120, P. R. China;
2. Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Stomatological Hospital Affiliated to Chongqing Medical University, Chongqing 401120, P. R. China;
3. Key Laboratory of Stomatology and Biomedical Engineering in Colleges and Universities of Chongqing, Chongqing 401120, P. R. China;

Corresponding?author：

QIU Lihua, Email: gqyidi2001@163.com

Keywords：

Bioabsorbable material; Poly-L-lactide; Mandibular fractures; Titanium plate; Meta-analysis

DOI：

10.7507/1002-0179.201703046

Video：

Export PDF Favorites Scan Get Citation

Abstract Full text Figures/Tables Video References Cited by

Objective To systematically review the efficacy of poly-L-lactide (PLLA) material treatment versus titanium plates treatment for mandibular fractures. Methods We searched the Cochrane Library, PubMed, Embase, Chinese Journal Full-text Database, VIP Database, and Wanfang Database to collect literatures about randomized or non-randomized controlled trials using PLLA treatment (the trial group) versus titanium plates treatment (the control group) for mandibular fractures in the last ten years (from January 2007 to March 2017). The quality evaluation and data extraction were carried out by 2 reviewers independently and analyzed by Review Manager 5.3 software. Results A total of 8 literatures including 453 patients with mandibular fractures were included in this Meta-analysis. There was no significant difference in total complications between the two groups [odds ratio (OR)=0.98, 95% confidence interval (CI) (0.55, 1.75), P=0.95], including dislocation healing [OR= 0.96, 95%CI (0.46, 2.01), P=0.90], occlusal disturbance [OR=1.53, 95%CI (0.61, 3.87), P=0.37], infection [OR=0.63, 95%CI (0.23, 1.74), P=0.37], and secondary operation [OR=0.46, 95%CI (0.17, 1.27), P=0.14]. Conclusion There is no significant difference between PLLA and titanium plate in the treatment of mandibular fractures.

Citation： YI Pinshi, QIU Lihua, HU Chengchen, REN Wei. Meta-analysis of poly-L-lactide material treatment for mandibular fractures . West China Medical Journal, 2017, 32(10): 1499-1504. doi: 10.7507/1002-0179.201703046 Copy

1.	何黎升, 陳杰. 下頜骨骨折的治療. 中國實用口腔科雜志, 2010, 3(4): 203-206.
2.	楊學文, 東耀峻, 李祖兵, 等. 堅固內固定技術在口腔頜面外科的應用. 口腔醫學縱橫雜志, 1999, 15(1): 31-33.
3.	Agarwal S, Gupta A, Grevious M, et al. Use of resorbable implants for mandibular fixation: a systematic review. J Craniofac Surg, 2009, 20(2): 331-339.
4.	林華維, 劉強. 可吸收內固定材料在頜面外科的應用. 口腔醫學, 2015, 35(11): 986-989.
5.	王立, 金大地, 樸仲賢. 生物可吸收高強度左旋聚丙交酯材料在體內的力學特征. 醫用生物力學, 2011, 16(3): 135-138.
6.	廖凱榮, 全大萍, 趙劍豪, 等. 低左旋度聚丙交酯的分子結構及體外降解行為研究. 功能高分子學報, 2013(16): 187-202.
7.	Laughlin RM, Block MS, Wilk R, et al. Resorbable plates for the fixation of mandibular fractures: a prospective study. Oral Maxillofac Surg, 2007, 65(1): 89-96.
8.	Yang L, Xu M, Jin X, et al. Skeletal stability of bioresorbable fixation in orthognathic surgery: a systemic review. J Cranio- maxillofac Surg, 2014, 42(5): e176-e181.
9.	Higgins JPT, Green S. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions Version 5.1.0. Cochrane Database Syst Rev, 2011(2): S38.
10.	Leno MB, Liu SY, Chen CT, et al. Comparison of functional outcomes and patient-reported satisfaction between titanium and absorbable plates and screws for fixation of mandibular fractures: a one-year prospective study. J Craniomaxillofac Surg, 2017, 45(5): 704-709.
11.	Sedhain BP, Jia YL. Comparison of biodegradable and titanium screw plates in mandible fracture. J Nepal Dental Assoc, 2013, 13(2): 54-61.
12.	Sukegawa S, Kanno T, Nagano D, et al. The clinical feasibility of newly developed thin flat-type bioresorbable osteosynthesis devices for the internal fixation of zygomatic fractures: is there a difference in healing between bioresorbable materials and titanium osteosynthesis?. J Craniofac Surg, 2016, 27(8): 2124-2129.
13.	Taylan FG, Akan M. Dilemma in pediatric mandible fractures: resorbable or metallic plates? Ulus Travma Acil Cerrahi Derg, 2015, 21(6): 509-513.
14.	盧軍, 馮興梅, 徐克, 等. 聚左旋丙交酯可吸收材料在下頜骨骨折中的臨床應用. 中國現代醫學雜志, 2011, 21(32): 4046-4091.
15.	呂繼連, 張瑞, 閆大勇, 等. 可吸收材料在兒童下頜骨骨折中的應用. 醫藥論壇雜志, 2016, 37(2): 67-69.
16.	徐澤群. 可吸收內固定板治療頜骨骨折的臨床療效觀察. 口腔醫學, 2014, 34(9): 716-718.
17.	邱勛定. 生物可吸收性微型接骨板與微型鈦內固定系統對下頜骨骨折穩定性的影響. 中國組織工程研究, 2015, 19(38): 6155-6160.
18.	鄭永紅, 張益, 孫勇剛, 等. 頜骨骨折堅強內固定術后取鈦板原因分析. 口腔頜面外科雜志, 2001, 11(1): 72-74.

1. 何黎升, 陳杰. 下頜骨骨折的治療. 中國實用口腔科雜志, 2010, 3(4): 203-206.
2. 楊學文, 東耀峻, 李祖兵, 等. 堅固內固定技術在口腔頜面外科的應用. 口腔醫學縱橫雜志, 1999, 15(1): 31-33.
3. Agarwal S, Gupta A, Grevious M, et al. Use of resorbable implants for mandibular fixation: a systematic review. J Craniofac Surg, 2009, 20(2): 331-339.
4. 林華維, 劉強. 可吸收內固定材料在頜面外科的應用. 口腔醫學, 2015, 35(11): 986-989.
5. 王立, 金大地, 樸仲賢. 生物可吸收高強度左旋聚丙交酯材料在體內的力學特征. 醫用生物力學, 2011, 16(3): 135-138.
6. 廖凱榮, 全大萍, 趙劍豪, 等. 低左旋度聚丙交酯的分子結構及體外降解行為研究. 功能高分子學報, 2013(16): 187-202.
7. Laughlin RM, Block MS, Wilk R, et al. Resorbable plates for the fixation of mandibular fractures: a prospective study. Oral Maxillofac Surg, 2007, 65(1): 89-96.
8. Yang L, Xu M, Jin X, et al. Skeletal stability of bioresorbable fixation in orthognathic surgery: a systemic review. J Cranio- maxillofac Surg, 2014, 42(5): e176-e181.
9. Higgins JPT, Green S. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions Version 5.1.0. Cochrane Database Syst Rev, 2011(2): S38.
10. Leno MB, Liu SY, Chen CT, et al. Comparison of functional outcomes and patient-reported satisfaction between titanium and absorbable plates and screws for fixation of mandibular fractures: a one-year prospective study. J Craniomaxillofac Surg, 2017, 45(5): 704-709.
11. Sedhain BP, Jia YL. Comparison of biodegradable and titanium screw plates in mandible fracture. J Nepal Dental Assoc, 2013, 13(2): 54-61.
12. Sukegawa S, Kanno T, Nagano D, et al. The clinical feasibility of newly developed thin flat-type bioresorbable osteosynthesis devices for the internal fixation of zygomatic fractures: is there a difference in healing between bioresorbable materials and titanium osteosynthesis?. J Craniofac Surg, 2016, 27(8): 2124-2129.
13. Taylan FG, Akan M. Dilemma in pediatric mandible fractures: resorbable or metallic plates? Ulus Travma Acil Cerrahi Derg, 2015, 21(6): 509-513.
14. 盧軍, 馮興梅, 徐克, 等. 聚左旋丙交酯可吸收材料在下頜骨骨折中的臨床應用. 中國現代醫學雜志, 2011, 21(32): 4046-4091.
15. 呂繼連, 張瑞, 閆大勇, 等. 可吸收材料在兒童下頜骨骨折中的應用. 醫藥論壇雜志, 2016, 37(2): 67-69.
16. 徐澤群. 可吸收內固定板治療頜骨骨折的臨床療效觀察. 口腔醫學, 2014, 34(9): 716-718.
17. 邱勛定. 生物可吸收性微型接骨板與微型鈦內固定系統對下頜骨骨折穩定性的影響. 中國組織工程研究, 2015, 19(38): 6155-6160.
18. 鄭永紅, 張益, 孫勇剛, 等. 頜骨骨折堅強內固定術后取鈦板原因分析. 口腔頜面外科雜志, 2001, 11(1): 72-74.

Previous Article
Topical administration of tranexamic acid in total hip arthroplasty: a Meta-analysis
Next Article
Clinical observation of the surgical treatment for 30 patients with discogenic low back pain

West China Medical Journal

Meta-analysis of poly-L-lactide material treatment for mandibular fractures

Abstract Full text Figures/Tables Video References Cited by

Previous Article

Next Article

Format

Content