Comparison of Clinical Efficacy of Screw-retained Arch Bar vs Conventional Erich's Arch Bar in Maxillomandibular Fixation: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Merna Hosny Elhadidi, Sally Awad, Heba Abo-Elfetouh Elsheikh, Mohamed Abdel-Monem Tawfik
{"title":"Comparison of Clinical Efficacy of Screw-retained Arch Bar vs Conventional Erich's Arch Bar in Maxillomandibular Fixation: A Randomized Clinical Trial.","authors":"Merna Hosny Elhadidi, Sally Awad, Heba Abo-Elfetouh Elsheikh, Mohamed Abdel-Monem Tawfik","doi":"10.5005/jp-journals-10024-3613","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Aim: </strong>This study aimed to compare the clinical outcomes of a conventional Erich's arch bar vs a modified screw-retained arch bar in maxillomandibular fixation of mandibular fracture.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>This parallel-arm randomized control trial included patients from the outpatient clinic with single favorable mandibular fractures that are indicated for closed reduction. They were subjected to maxillomandibular fixation using conventional Erich's arch bars in the control group and modified screw-retained arch bars in the study group. The outcome measures included operating time, glove perforations, postoperative pain, oral hygiene, fixation stability, occlusion, and mucosal coverage.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 20 patients (12 males and 8 females) with a 1:1 allocation ratio were included. There was a significant statistical difference regarding operation time and number of glove perforations in favor of group B as <i>p</i> < 0.001, <i>p</i> = 0.007, respectively. There was a significant statistical difference regarding pain after 1 day (<i>p</i> < 0.001), 1 week (<i>p</i> < 0.001) in favor of group B, and at 4 weeks (<i>p</i> = 0.015), and 6 weeks (<i>p</i> = 0.002) in favor of group A. Regarding oral hygiene at 1 week (<i>p</i> = 0.021) and at 6 weeks (<i>p</i> < 0.001), there was a significant statistical difference in favor of group B. Regarding mucosal coverage at 6 weeks, there was a significant statistical difference in favor of group A (<i>p</i> = 0.005).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The modified screw-retained arch bar can be considered an alternative to conventional arch bar as it provided less application time and better operator safety. It also showed better patient satisfaction regarding pain and oral hygiene.</p><p><strong>Clinical significance: </strong>Maxillomandibular fixation with the conventional technique was modified to screw-retained arch bar which is less time-consuming and provides better patient and operator satisfaction. How to cite this article: Elhadidi MH, Awad S, Elsheikh HAE, <i>et al</i>. Comparison of Clinical Efficacy of Screw-retained Arch Bar vs Conventional Erich's Arch Bar in Maxillomandibular Fixation: A Randomized Clinical Trial. J Contemp Dent Pract 2023;24(12):928-935.</p>","PeriodicalId":35792,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Contemporary Dental Practice","volume":"24 12","pages":"928-935"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Contemporary Dental Practice","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5005/jp-journals-10024-3613","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Dentistry","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Aim: This study aimed to compare the clinical outcomes of a conventional Erich's arch bar vs a modified screw-retained arch bar in maxillomandibular fixation of mandibular fracture.

Materials and methods: This parallel-arm randomized control trial included patients from the outpatient clinic with single favorable mandibular fractures that are indicated for closed reduction. They were subjected to maxillomandibular fixation using conventional Erich's arch bars in the control group and modified screw-retained arch bars in the study group. The outcome measures included operating time, glove perforations, postoperative pain, oral hygiene, fixation stability, occlusion, and mucosal coverage.

Results: A total of 20 patients (12 males and 8 females) with a 1:1 allocation ratio were included. There was a significant statistical difference regarding operation time and number of glove perforations in favor of group B as p < 0.001, p = 0.007, respectively. There was a significant statistical difference regarding pain after 1 day (p < 0.001), 1 week (p < 0.001) in favor of group B, and at 4 weeks (p = 0.015), and 6 weeks (p = 0.002) in favor of group A. Regarding oral hygiene at 1 week (p = 0.021) and at 6 weeks (p < 0.001), there was a significant statistical difference in favor of group B. Regarding mucosal coverage at 6 weeks, there was a significant statistical difference in favor of group A (p = 0.005).

Conclusion: The modified screw-retained arch bar can be considered an alternative to conventional arch bar as it provided less application time and better operator safety. It also showed better patient satisfaction regarding pain and oral hygiene.

Clinical significance: Maxillomandibular fixation with the conventional technique was modified to screw-retained arch bar which is less time-consuming and provides better patient and operator satisfaction. How to cite this article: Elhadidi MH, Awad S, Elsheikh HAE, et al. Comparison of Clinical Efficacy of Screw-retained Arch Bar vs Conventional Erich's Arch Bar in Maxillomandibular Fixation: A Randomized Clinical Trial. J Contemp Dent Pract 2023;24(12):928-935.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
螺钉固位弓杆与传统 Erich 弓杆在上下颌固定中的临床疗效比较:随机临床试验。
目的:本研究旨在比较在下颌骨骨折的上颌骨固定中,传统的埃里希弓形固定棒与改良的螺钉固定弓形固定棒的临床效果:这项平行臂随机对照试验纳入了门诊单发下颌骨骨折患者,这些患者均有闭合复位的指征。对照组和研究组分别使用传统的埃里希弓形固定棒和改良的螺钉固定弓形固定棒进行上下颌骨固定。结果测量包括手术时间、手套穿孔、术后疼痛、口腔卫生、固定稳定性、咬合和粘膜覆盖:共纳入 20 名患者(12 名男性和 8 名女性),分配比例为 1:1。在手术时间和手套穿孔数量方面,B 组有明显的统计学差异,分别为 p < 0.001 和 p = 0.007。B 组在 1 天后(p < 0.001)和 1 周后(p < 0.001)的疼痛方面有明显的统计学差异,A 组在 4 周后(p = 0.015)和 6 周后(p = 0.002)的疼痛方面有明显的统计学差异。在 1 周(p = 0.021)和 6 周(p < 0.001)的口腔卫生方面,B 组有显著的统计学差异。在 6 周的粘膜覆盖率方面,A 组有明显的统计学差异(p = 0.005):结论:改良的螺钉固位牙弓杆可以替代传统的牙弓杆,因为它的应用时间更短,操作安全性更高。临床意义:临床意义:将传统的上颌固定技术改良为螺钉固位弓杆,耗时更短,患者和操作者的满意度更高。本文引用方式Elhadidi MH, Awad S, Elsheikh HAE, et al:随机临床试验。J Contemp Dent Pract 2023;24(12):928-935.
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of Contemporary Dental Practice
Journal of Contemporary Dental Practice Dentistry-Dentistry (all)
CiteScore
1.80
自引率
0.00%
发文量
174
期刊介绍: The Journal of Contemporary Dental Practice (JCDP), is a peer-reviewed, open access MEDLINE indexed journal. The journal’s full text is available online at http://www.thejcdp.com. The journal allows free access (open access) to its contents. Articles with clinical relevance will be given preference for publication. The Journal publishes original research papers, review articles, rare and novel case reports, and clinical techniques. Manuscripts are invited from all specialties of dentistry i.e., conservative dentistry and endodontics, dentofacial orthopedics and orthodontics, oral medicine and radiology, oral pathology, oral surgery, orodental diseases, pediatric dentistry, implantology, periodontics, clinical aspects of public health dentistry, and prosthodontics.
期刊最新文献
Internal Fit and Marginal Adaptation of Posterior CAD/CAM Crowns Fabricated from Fully Crystallized Lithium Disilicate Compared to Partially Crystallized Lithium Disilicate with Two Finish Line Thicknesses: An In Vitro Study. Management of Deep Caries Lesions: A Study among Dentists in the Private Sector of Casablanca, Morocco. One-year Clinical Evaluation, Patient Satisfaction, and Adaptation of Milled (PEEK) Single Anterior Crowns Veneered with Two Different Techniques. Patient Satisfaction during Upper Lip Augmentation Procedures: V-Y in V-Y Technique Compared to Micro-fat Injection: A Randomized Clinical Trial. Trends, Collaborative Networks, and Impact of Infrared Thermography and Thermal Therapies in Dentistry: A Bibliometric Study.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1