***TASK***
the task is to simplify the input abstract of a biomedical literature

***INPUT***
the input is the abstract of a biomedical literature

***OUTPUT***
the output is the simplified abstract for the input abstract of a biomedical literature

***DOCUMENTATION***

***EXAMPLES***

Input: Twelve studies, assessed as high (six) and unclear (six) risk of bias, comprising 689 participants (830 fractures), were included. Interventions examined different plate materials and morphology; use of one or two lag screws; microplate versus miniplate; early and delayed mobilization; eyelet wires versus Rapid IMF™ and the management of angle fractures with intraoral access alone or combined with a transbuccal approach. Patient-oriented outcomes were largely ignored and post-operative pain scores were inadequately reported. Unfortunately, only one or two trials with small sample sizes were conducted for each comparison and outcome. Our results and conclusions should therefore be interpreted with caution. We were able to pool the results for two comparisons assessing one outcome. Pooled data from two studies comparing two miniplates versus one miniplate revealed no significant difference in the risk of post-operative infection of surgical site (risk ratio (RR) 1.32, 95% CI 0.41 to 4.22, P = 0.64, I2 = 0%). Similarly, no difference in post-operative infection between the use of two 3-dimensional (3D) and standard (2D) miniplates was determined (RR 1.26, 95% CI 0.19 to 8.13, P = 0.81, I2 = 27%). The included studies involved a small number of participants with a low number of events. This review illustrates that there is currently inadequate evidence to support the effectiveness of a single approach in the management of mandibular fractures without condylar involvement. The lack of high quality evidence may be explained by clinical diversity, variability in assessment tools used and difficulty in grading outcomes with existing measurement tools. Until high level evidence is available, treatment decisions should continue to be based on the clinician's prior experience and the individual circumstances.
Output:

The evidence on which this review is based is up to date as of 28 February 2013. Twelve studies with a combined total of 689 participants were included in this review. Participants ranged in age from 16 to 68 years and most participants (90%) were male. All of the studies compared different types of surgical treatments, and each study evaluated a different aspect of surgical treatment such as different types of plates, screws, or wires or how long the jaw was immobilized after surgery. There were concerns about the design and quality of all the studies. All the studies evaluated different aspects of surgical treatment. None of the studies evaluated non-surgical treatments such as intermaxillary fixation and no study compared surgical treatment with non-surgical treatment. As a result there is no clear evidence to indicate which approach is the best to manage these fractures. The quality of the evidence found is poor. Recommendations are made for further well-conducted research studies in this area to be undertaken.