Scholarlink

Materials and Methods <p>Patients satisfying the inclusion and exclusion criteria underwent arch bar application followed by either closed reduction or open reduction with internal fixation. Pre-operatively: OHI, GI, radiographically displacement, no. of fractures, Perioperatively: Duration of procedure, glove perforation, wire prick injuries, screw loosening/wire breakage, stability, and comfort intraoperatively. Postoperatively: OHI index and GI index, screw loosening/wire breakage, arch bar removal time and glove perforation, wire stick injury, root perforation. Chi-square test was used for categorical data in tabular and graphical forms.</p> Results <p>A statistically significant difference was observed in the postoperative OHI score, GI score, mean placement time, and mean removal time between Group A and Group B. The stability of the arch bar was matched between the groups. Screw loosening was non significant, Glove perforation was significant between Group A and B. Wire stick injury was non-significant between group A and B.</p> Conclusion <p>The Hybrid Arch Bar proved to be superior to Erich’s Arch Bar in terms of time efficiency, stability, comfort, and oral hygiene. Overall, the benefits of the Hybrid Arch Bar outweigh its disadvantages.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Comparison of Bone Supported Hybrid Arch Bar with Erich’s Arch Bar for Intermaxillary Fixation in Facial Fractures. A Comparative Prospective Randomized Clinical Study

  • 期刊论文

  • 发表日期：

    2025年9月30日

查看全文
  • Naveen Chhabra,
  • Parveen Sharma,
  • Shruti Chhabra,
  • Ankit Kalra

摘要

Materials and Methods

Patients satisfying the inclusion and exclusion criteria underwent arch bar application followed by either closed reduction or open reduction with internal fixation. Pre-operatively: OHI, GI, radiographically displacement, no. of fractures, Perioperatively: Duration of procedure, glove perforation, wire prick injuries, screw loosening/wire breakage, stability, and comfort intraoperatively. Postoperatively: OHI index and GI index, screw loosening/wire breakage, arch bar removal time and glove perforation, wire stick injury, root perforation. Chi-square test was used for categorical data in tabular and graphical forms.

Results

A statistically significant difference was observed in the postoperative OHI score, GI score, mean placement time, and mean removal time between Group A and Group B. The stability of the arch bar was matched between the groups. Screw loosening was non significant, Glove perforation was significant between Group A and B. Wire stick injury was non-significant between group A and B.

Conclusion

The Hybrid Arch Bar proved to be superior to Erich’s Arch Bar in terms of time efficiency, stability, comfort, and oral hygiene. Overall, the benefits of the Hybrid Arch Bar outweigh its disadvantages.