Cargando…

The Use of Screw Retained Hybrid Arch Bar for Maxillomandibular Fixation in the Treatment of Mandibular Fractures: A Comparative Study

INTRODUCTION: The use of screw-retained hybrid arch bars (HABs) is a relatively recent development in the treatment of mandibular fractures. The purpose of this study is to compare the clinical outcome between HAB and the conventional Erich arch bar (EAB) in the closed treatment of mandibular fractu...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Hamid, Saif T., Bede, Salwan Y.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Wolters Kluwer - Medknow 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8848701/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35265493
http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/ams.ams_35_21
_version_ 1784652310154051584
author Hamid, Saif T.
Bede, Salwan Y.
author_facet Hamid, Saif T.
Bede, Salwan Y.
author_sort Hamid, Saif T.
collection PubMed
description INTRODUCTION: The use of screw-retained hybrid arch bars (HABs) is a relatively recent development in the treatment of mandibular fractures. The purpose of this study is to compare the clinical outcome between HAB and the conventional Erich arch bar (EAB) in the closed treatment of mandibular fractures. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This study included 18 patients who were treated for mandibular fractures with maxillomandibular fixation (MMF), patients were randomly assigned into a control group (n = 10) in which EAB was used and study group (n = 8) in which HAB was used. The outcome variables were time required for application and removal, gingival inflammation scores, postoperative complications, and incidence of wire-stick injury or gloves perforation. The groups were compared using unpaired t-test, Mann–Whitney test, Chi-square test, or Fisher test. The differences were considered significant at P < 0.05. RESULTS: The mean application time was significantly more in EAB than HAB (61.6 ± 11.4 vs. 41.6 ± 6 min, respectively). The mean time of removal for EAB was significantly less than HAB (11.1 ± 2 vs. 14.2 ± 3 min, respectively). There was nonsignificant difference in gingival inflammation between the groups. No major complications were recorded. Screw loosening and mucosal overgrowth were recorded in 12.5% and 31.2% of the screws, respectively, in HAB group. The incidence of gloves tear in EAB group was 70%. DISCUSSION: HAB can be used as an alternative to EAB for MMF in patients with mandibular fracture, it requires less time for application and provides more safety for the surgeons.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-8848701
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2021
publisher Wolters Kluwer - Medknow
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-88487012022-03-08 The Use of Screw Retained Hybrid Arch Bar for Maxillomandibular Fixation in the Treatment of Mandibular Fractures: A Comparative Study Hamid, Saif T. Bede, Salwan Y. Ann Maxillofac Surg Original Article - Comparative Study INTRODUCTION: The use of screw-retained hybrid arch bars (HABs) is a relatively recent development in the treatment of mandibular fractures. The purpose of this study is to compare the clinical outcome between HAB and the conventional Erich arch bar (EAB) in the closed treatment of mandibular fractures. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This study included 18 patients who were treated for mandibular fractures with maxillomandibular fixation (MMF), patients were randomly assigned into a control group (n = 10) in which EAB was used and study group (n = 8) in which HAB was used. The outcome variables were time required for application and removal, gingival inflammation scores, postoperative complications, and incidence of wire-stick injury or gloves perforation. The groups were compared using unpaired t-test, Mann–Whitney test, Chi-square test, or Fisher test. The differences were considered significant at P < 0.05. RESULTS: The mean application time was significantly more in EAB than HAB (61.6 ± 11.4 vs. 41.6 ± 6 min, respectively). The mean time of removal for EAB was significantly less than HAB (11.1 ± 2 vs. 14.2 ± 3 min, respectively). There was nonsignificant difference in gingival inflammation between the groups. No major complications were recorded. Screw loosening and mucosal overgrowth were recorded in 12.5% and 31.2% of the screws, respectively, in HAB group. The incidence of gloves tear in EAB group was 70%. DISCUSSION: HAB can be used as an alternative to EAB for MMF in patients with mandibular fracture, it requires less time for application and provides more safety for the surgeons. Wolters Kluwer - Medknow 2021 2022-02-01 /pmc/articles/PMC8848701/ /pubmed/35265493 http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/ams.ams_35_21 Text en Copyright: © 2022 Annals of Maxillofacial Surgery https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/This is an open access journal, and articles are distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 License, which allows others to remix, tweak, and build upon the work non-commercially, as long as appropriate credit is given and the new creations are licensed under the identical terms.
spellingShingle Original Article - Comparative Study
Hamid, Saif T.
Bede, Salwan Y.
The Use of Screw Retained Hybrid Arch Bar for Maxillomandibular Fixation in the Treatment of Mandibular Fractures: A Comparative Study
title The Use of Screw Retained Hybrid Arch Bar for Maxillomandibular Fixation in the Treatment of Mandibular Fractures: A Comparative Study
title_full The Use of Screw Retained Hybrid Arch Bar for Maxillomandibular Fixation in the Treatment of Mandibular Fractures: A Comparative Study
title_fullStr The Use of Screw Retained Hybrid Arch Bar for Maxillomandibular Fixation in the Treatment of Mandibular Fractures: A Comparative Study
title_full_unstemmed The Use of Screw Retained Hybrid Arch Bar for Maxillomandibular Fixation in the Treatment of Mandibular Fractures: A Comparative Study
title_short The Use of Screw Retained Hybrid Arch Bar for Maxillomandibular Fixation in the Treatment of Mandibular Fractures: A Comparative Study
title_sort use of screw retained hybrid arch bar for maxillomandibular fixation in the treatment of mandibular fractures: a comparative study
topic Original Article - Comparative Study
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8848701/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35265493
http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/ams.ams_35_21
work_keys_str_mv AT hamidsaift theuseofscrewretainedhybridarchbarformaxillomandibularfixationinthetreatmentofmandibularfracturesacomparativestudy
AT bedesalwany theuseofscrewretainedhybridarchbarformaxillomandibularfixationinthetreatmentofmandibularfracturesacomparativestudy
AT hamidsaift useofscrewretainedhybridarchbarformaxillomandibularfixationinthetreatmentofmandibularfracturesacomparativestudy
AT bedesalwany useofscrewretainedhybridarchbarformaxillomandibularfixationinthetreatmentofmandibularfracturesacomparativestudy