"Comparison of the efficacy of Erich arch bars, IMF screws and SMART Lock Hybrid arch bars in the management of mandibular fractures- A Randomized clinical study".

IF 2.2 3区医学 Q2 Dentistry

Journal of Stomatology Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery Pub Date : 2025-01-04 DOI:10.1016/j.jormas.2025.102217

Revanth Kumar Salavadi, Jangam Sowmya, Baswa Mani Kumari, Kavitha P Kamath, Pradeep S Anand, Nambi Muni Roopesh Kumar, Pranavi Jadhav

{"title":"\"Comparison of the efficacy of Erich arch bars, IMF screws and SMART Lock Hybrid arch bars in the management of mandibular fractures- A Randomized clinical study\".","authors":"Revanth Kumar Salavadi, Jangam Sowmya, Baswa Mani Kumari, Kavitha P Kamath, Pradeep S Anand, Nambi Muni Roopesh Kumar, Pranavi Jadhav","doi":"10.1016/j.jormas.2025.102217","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Purpose: The purpose of this study was to assess and compare the efficacy of Erich Arch Bar (EAB), Inter Maxillary Fixation (IMF) screws and SMART Lock Hybrid arch bar (HABs) in the treatment of mandibular fractures.Materials and methods: A prospective randomized clinical study was carried out in the Department of Dentistry at ESIC Hospital in Hyderabad from August 2021 to August 2023. The study comprised of three groups (EAB group (31), IMF screw group (33) and HABs group (29)).Primary outcome variable was occlusal stability. Secondary outcome variables were time taken to apply the device, glove perforation, oral hygiene assessment by Modified Turskey Gilmore Plaque index, Quality of life (QOL) assessment by General Oral Health Assessment Index (GOHAI), mucosal growth and dental injuries.Results: The average application time for EAB, IMF screws and HABs was 78 min, 15 min and 19 min respectively. No significant difference was noticed in occlusal stability at the end of 1 week and 4 weeks follow-up period. There was no statistically significant difference in instances of dental injury among the three groups. However, there were statistically significant differences (P < 0.05) in the time taken to apply, glove perforation, oral hygiene levels, mucosal overgrowth and total GOHAI score among the 3 groups.Conclusion: HABs and IMF screws may be recommended over EABfor MMF inmandibular dentate segment fracture management due to their advantages including quick application, enhanced occlusal stability, and QOL, all of which are required for a better functional outcome.","PeriodicalId":56038,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Stomatology Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery","volume":" ","pages":"102217"},"PeriodicalIF":2.2000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Stomatology Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jormas.2025.102217","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Dentistry","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose: The purpose of this study was to assess and compare the efficacy of Erich Arch Bar (EAB), Inter Maxillary Fixation (IMF) screws and SMART Lock Hybrid arch bar (HABs) in the treatment of mandibular fractures.

Materials and methods: A prospective randomized clinical study was carried out in the Department of Dentistry at ESIC Hospital in Hyderabad from August 2021 to August 2023. The study comprised of three groups (EAB group (31), IMF screw group (33) and HABs group (29)).Primary outcome variable was occlusal stability. Secondary outcome variables were time taken to apply the device, glove perforation, oral hygiene assessment by Modified Turskey Gilmore Plaque index, Quality of life (QOL) assessment by General Oral Health Assessment Index (GOHAI), mucosal growth and dental injuries.

Results: The average application time for EAB, IMF screws and HABs was 78 min, 15 min and 19 min respectively. No significant difference was noticed in occlusal stability at the end of 1 week and 4 weeks follow-up period. There was no statistically significant difference in instances of dental injury among the three groups. However, there were statistically significant differences (P < 0.05) in the time taken to apply, glove perforation, oral hygiene levels, mucosal overgrowth and total GOHAI score among the 3 groups.

Conclusion: HABs and IMF screws may be recommended over EABfor MMF inmandibular dentate segment fracture management due to their advantages including quick application, enhanced occlusal stability, and QOL, all of which are required for a better functional outcome.

查看原文本刊更多论文

“Erich弓棒、IMF螺钉和SMART Lock混合弓棒治疗下颌骨骨折疗效的比较——一项随机临床研究”。

目的：本研究的目的是评估和比较Erich弓棒（EAB）、上颌内固定（IMF）螺钉和SMART Lock混合弓棒（HABs）治疗下颌骨骨折的疗效。材料与方法：于2021年8月至2023年8月在海德拉巴ESIC医院牙科部进行了一项前瞻性随机临床研究。本研究分为三组：EAB组（31例）、IMF螺钉组（33例）和HABs组（29例）。主要结局变量为咬合稳定性。次要结局变量为使用器械时间、手套穿孔、改良Turskey Gilmore菌斑指数口腔卫生评价、一般口腔健康评价指数（GOHAI）生活质量评价、粘膜生长和牙损伤。结果：EAB、IMF螺钉和HABs的平均应用时间分别为78 min、15 min和19 min。随访1周和4周时，两组牙合稳定性无明显差异。三组间牙损伤发生率无统计学差异。但三组患者在敷药时间、手套穿孔、口腔卫生水平、黏膜过度生长、GOHAI总评分方面差异均有统计学意义（P < 0.05）。结论：HABs和IMF螺钉应用于下颌齿状段MMF骨折治疗可优于eabs，其优点包括快速应用、增强咬合稳定性和生活质量，均可获得更好的功能结果。

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分钟内获得全文求助全文

来源期刊

Journal of Stomatology Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery Dentistry-Oral Surgery

CiteScore

2.20

自引率

9.10%

发文量

305

期刊介绍： J Stomatol Oral Maxillofac Surg publishes research papers and techniques - (guest) editorials, original articles, reviews, technical notes, case reports, images, letters to the editor, guidelines - dedicated to enhancing surgical expertise in all fields relevant to oral and maxillofacial surgery: from plastic and reconstructive surgery of the face, oral surgery and medicine, … to dentofacial and maxillofacial orthopedics. Original articles include clinical or laboratory investigations and clinical or equipment reports. Reviews include narrative reviews, systematic reviews and meta-analyses. All manuscripts submitted to the journal are subjected to peer review by international experts, and must: Be written in excellent English, clear and easy to understand, precise and concise; Bring new, interesting, valid information - and improve clinical care or guide future research; Be solely the work of the author(s) stated; Not have been previously published elsewhere and not be under consideration by another journal; Be in accordance with the journal''s Guide for Authors'' instructions: manuscripts that fail to comply with these rules may be returned to the authors without being reviewed. Under no circumstances does the journal guarantee publication before the editorial board makes its final decision. The journal is indexed in the main international databases and is accessible worldwide through the ScienceDirect and ClinicalKey Platforms.