Background/Objectives: Titanium fixation remains the gold standard for stabilizing mandibular fractures; however, associated complications often necessitate a second surgery for hardware removal. Consequently, biodegradable systems were introduced, though questions persist regarding their mechanical reliability and potential for tissue reactions. This systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted to compare the efficacy and morbidity of biodegradable versus titanium osteosynthesis systems for the treatment of mandibular fractures. Methods: Following PRISMA guidelines, a systematic literature search was conducted in MEDLINE, Embase, and CENTRAL. Comparative studies, such as randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and non-randomized studies, were included. The primary outcome was the rate of hardware removal; therefore, a random-effects meta-analysis was performed to calculate a pooled Odds Ratio (OR), while the risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane RoB 2 and ROBINS-I tools. Results: Eight studies, including four RCTs, comprising a total of 369 patients, were included, with most studies judged to be at a high or serious risk of bias due to inadequate randomization, lack of blinding, and confounding co-interventions. The meta-analysis of four RCTs on hardware removal revealed no statistically significant difference between the biodegradable and titanium groups (pooled OR 0.28, 95% CI 0.04 to 1.90), with substantial and statistically significant heterogeneity observed (I2 = 66.1%). Qualitative synthesis indicated that biodegradable systems were associated with higher rates of intraoperative screw breakage and longer operative times, while rates of successful bone union were comparable between the two groups. Conclusions: Biodegradable osteosynthesis systems represent a viable alternative to titanium for mandibular fracture fixation, demonstrating similar efficacy in achieving bone union, which is counterbalanced by higher rates of screw breakage and longer operative times. The decision to use a biodegradable system involves a critical trade-off that should be designed for the specific clinical scenario. The high risk of bias and significant heterogeneity limit the certainty of these findings, underscoring the imperative for future high-quality, long-term RCTs.
Zailai et al. (Wed,) studied this question.