Agarwal et al44 Agarwal M, Mohammad S, Singh RK, Singh V. Prospective randomized clinical trial comparing bite force in 2-mm locking plates versus 2-mm standard plates in treatment of mandibular fractures. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2011;69(07):1995-2000
|
2.47 ± 1.74 |
0.90 ± 0.91 |
14.6 ± 6.30 |
4.73 ± 3.74 |
8.39 ± 5.72 |
5.55 ± 3.68 |
Giri et al1414 Giri KY, Sahu P, Rastogi S, et al. Bite Force Evaluation of Conventional Plating System Versus Locking Plating System for Mandibular Fracture. J Maxillofac Oral Surg 2015;14(04):972-978
|
5.54 ± 1.67 |
5.46 ± 1.22 |
16.92 ± 2.87 |
15.54 ± 4.26 |
16.60 ± 3.45 |
16.10 ± 4.46 |
Kumar et al1515 Kumar S, Gattumeedhi SR, Sankhla B, Garg A, Ingle E, Dagli N. Comparative evaluation of bite forces in patients after treatment of mandibular fractures with miniplate osteosynthesis and internal locking miniplate osteosynthesis. J Int Soc Prev Community Dent 2014;4(Suppl 1):S26-S31
|
ND |
ND |
ND |
ND |
ND |
ND |
Rastogi et al1616 Rastogi S, Reddy MP, Swarup AG, Swarup D, Choudhury R. Assessment of Bite Force in Patients Treated with 2.0-mm Traditional Miniplates versus 2.0-mm Locking Plates for Mandibular Fracture. Craniomaxillofac Trauma Reconstr 2016;9(01):62-68
|
5.54 ± 1.67 |
5.46 ± 1.22 |
16.92 ± 2.87 |
15.54 ± 4.26 |
16.60 ± 3.45 |
16.10 ± 4.46 |
Follow-up 3rd week
|
Author, year
|
Incisor region: Mean ± SD
|
Left molar region: Mean ± SD
|
Right molar region: Mean ± SD
|
Locking
|
Non-locking
|
Locking
|
Non-locking
|
Locking
|
Non-locking
|
Agarwal et al44 Agarwal M, Mohammad S, Singh RK, Singh V. Prospective randomized clinical trial comparing bite force in 2-mm locking plates versus 2-mm standard plates in treatment of mandibular fractures. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2011;69(07):1995-2000
|
4.22 ± 2.45 |
2.61 ± 1.75 |
27.79 ± 11.85 |
12.23 ± 5.94 |
20.52 ± 9.58 |
15.26 ± 9.69 |
Giri et al1414 Giri KY, Sahu P, Rastogi S, et al. Bite Force Evaluation of Conventional Plating System Versus Locking Plating System for Mandibular Fracture. J Maxillofac Oral Surg 2015;14(04):972-978
|
7.26 ± 1.96 |
6.85 ± 1.59 |
19.83 ± 2.19 |
18.00 ± 4.97 |
19.5 ± 2.17 |
19.34 ± 4.99 |
Kumar et al1515 Kumar S, Gattumeedhi SR, Sankhla B, Garg A, Ingle E, Dagli N. Comparative evaluation of bite forces in patients after treatment of mandibular fractures with miniplate osteosynthesis and internal locking miniplate osteosynthesis. J Int Soc Prev Community Dent 2014;4(Suppl 1):S26-S31
|
ND |
ND |
ND |
ND |
ND |
ND |
Rastogi et al1616 Rastogi S, Reddy MP, Swarup AG, Swarup D, Choudhury R. Assessment of Bite Force in Patients Treated with 2.0-mm Traditional Miniplates versus 2.0-mm Locking Plates for Mandibular Fracture. Craniomaxillofac Trauma Reconstr 2016;9(01):62-68
|
7.26 ± 1.96 |
6.85 ± 1.59 |
19.83 ± 2.19 |
18.00 ± 4.97 |
19.5 ± 2.17 |
19.34 ± 4.99 |
Follow-up 6th week
|
Author, year
|
Incisor region: Mean ± SD
|
Left molar region: Mean ± SD
|
Right molar region: Mean ± SD
|
Locking
|
Non-locking
|
Locking
|
Non-locking
|
Locking
|
Non-locking
|
Agarwal et al44 Agarwal M, Mohammad S, Singh RK, Singh V. Prospective randomized clinical trial comparing bite force in 2-mm locking plates versus 2-mm standard plates in treatment of mandibular fractures. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2011;69(07):1995-2000
|
7.93 ± 4.94 |
5.17 ± 2.41 |
43.27 ± 13.80 |
18.99 ± 6.08 |
37.92 ± 10.44 |
22.73 ± 7.40 |
Giri et al1414 Giri KY, Sahu P, Rastogi S, et al. Bite Force Evaluation of Conventional Plating System Versus Locking Plating System for Mandibular Fracture. J Maxillofac Oral Surg 2015;14(04):972-978
|
8.83 ± 1.97 |
8.49 ± 1.39 |
22.69 ± 2.09 |
21.20 ± 5.70 |
23.64 ± 3.02 |
23.08 ± 5.99 |
Kumar et al1515 Kumar S, Gattumeedhi SR, Sankhla B, Garg A, Ingle E, Dagli N. Comparative evaluation of bite forces in patients after treatment of mandibular fractures with miniplate osteosynthesis and internal locking miniplate osteosynthesis. J Int Soc Prev Community Dent 2014;4(Suppl 1):S26-S31
|
ND |
ND |
ND |
ND |
ND |
ND |
Rastogi et al1616 Rastogi S, Reddy MP, Swarup AG, Swarup D, Choudhury R. Assessment of Bite Force in Patients Treated with 2.0-mm Traditional Miniplates versus 2.0-mm Locking Plates for Mandibular Fracture. Craniomaxillofac Trauma Reconstr 2016;9(01):62-68
|
8.83 ± 1.97 |
8.49 ± 1.39 |
22.69 ± 2.09 |
21.20 ± 5.70 |
23.64 ± 3.02 |
23.08 ± 5.99 |
Follow-up 3rd month
|
Author, year
|
Incisor region: Mean ± SD
|
Left molar region: Mean ± SD
|
Right molar region: Mean ± SD
|
Locking
|
Non-locking
|
Locking
|
Non-locking
|
Locking
|
Non-locking
|
Agarwal et al44 Agarwal M, Mohammad S, Singh RK, Singh V. Prospective randomized clinical trial comparing bite force in 2-mm locking plates versus 2-mm standard plates in treatment of mandibular fractures. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2011;69(07):1995-2000
|
16.76 ± 9.34 |
6.95 ± 2.02 |
63.07 ± 21.30 |
28.69 ± 7.42 |
58.43 ± 20.25 |
31.58 ± 9.58 |
Giri et al1414 Giri KY, Sahu P, Rastogi S, et al. Bite Force Evaluation of Conventional Plating System Versus Locking Plating System for Mandibular Fracture. J Maxillofac Oral Surg 2015;14(04):972-978
|
ND |
ND |
ND |
ND |
ND |
ND |
Kumar et al1515 Kumar S, Gattumeedhi SR, Sankhla B, Garg A, Ingle E, Dagli N. Comparative evaluation of bite forces in patients after treatment of mandibular fractures with miniplate osteosynthesis and internal locking miniplate osteosynthesis. J Int Soc Prev Community Dent 2014;4(Suppl 1):S26-S31
|
ND |
ND |
ND |
ND |
ND |
ND |
Rastogi et al1616 Rastogi S, Reddy MP, Swarup AG, Swarup D, Choudhury R. Assessment of Bite Force in Patients Treated with 2.0-mm Traditional Miniplates versus 2.0-mm Locking Plates for Mandibular Fracture. Craniomaxillofac Trauma Reconstr 2016;9(01):62-68
|
ND |
ND |
ND |
ND |
ND |
ND |