Litcius/Paper detail

Comparison of hybrid arch bar versus conventional arch bar for temporary maxillomandibular fixation during treatment of jaw fractures: a prospective comparative study

Samriddhi Burman, Santhosh Rao, Ankush Ankush, Nakul Uppal

2023Journal of the Korean Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons11 citationsDOIOpen Access PDF

Abstract

Objectives: This study aimed to compare the effectiveness of a hybrid arch bar (hAB) with the conventional Erich arch bar (EAB) for the management of jaw fractures, focusing on their use for temporary fixation in patients undergoing open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF). Materials and Methods: <0.05 considered statistically significant. Results: =0.413). Mucosal overgrowth was observed in 75.0% of patients (15 of 20) in Group A. Conclusion: The hAB was superior to EAB in clinical efficiency, maxillomandibular fixation time reduction, stability, versatility, and safety. Despite temporary mucosal overgrowth, the benefits of hAB outweigh the disadvantages. The choice between hAB and EAB should be based on specific clinical requirements.

Topics & Concepts

MedicineArchOcclusionDentistryFixation (population genetics)Prospective cohort studyInternal fixationDental archSurgeryOrthodonticsEngineeringPopulationEnvironmental healthCivil engineeringFacial Trauma and Fracture ManagementSpinal Fractures and Fixation TechniquesTraumatic Brain Injury and Neurovascular Disturbances
Comparison of hybrid arch bar versus conventional arch bar for temporary maxillomandibular fixation during treatment of jaw fractures: a prospective comparative study | Litcius