混合弓形矫形器与 Erich 弓形矫形器在下颌骨骨折治疗中的有效性和安全性比较:随机临床试验。

IF 0.8 Q4 DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE
Hariram Sankar, Sachin Rai, Satnam S Jolly, Vidya Rattan
{"title":"混合弓形矫形器与 Erich 弓形矫形器在下颌骨骨折治疗中的有效性和安全性比较:随机临床试验。","authors":"Hariram Sankar, Sachin Rai, Satnam S Jolly, Vidya Rattan","doi":"10.1177/19433875221080019","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Study design: </strong>A clinical randomized control trial.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>To compare the efficacy and safety of Hybrid arch bar (HAB) with Erich arch bar (EAB) in fracture management of the mandible.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>In this randomized clinical trial, 44 patients were divided into 2 groups:- Group 1, N = 23 (EAB group) and Group 2, N = 21 (HAB group). The primary outcome was time taken for the application of arch bar, while the inner and outer glove puncture, operator prick, oral hygiene, arch bar stability, complications of HAB, and cost comparison were secondary outcomes.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The time taken for the application of arch bar in group 2 was significantly shorter than group 1 (55.66 ± 17.869 min vs 82.04 ± 12.197 min) and the frequency of outer glove puncture was also significantly lesser for group 2 (0 punctures vs 9 punctures). Better oral hygiene was found in group 2. EAB was cost-effective than HAB (Rs 700 ± 239.79 vs Rs 1742.50 ± 257.14). The stability of the arch bar was comparable in both groups. Group 2 had associated complications of root injury in 2 out of 252 screws placed and the screw head got covered by soft tissue in 137 out of 252 screws placed.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Thus, HAB was better than EAB with a shorter time of application, less risk of prick injury, and improved oral hygiene.Clinical trial registry name- clinical trials registry- India, URL-http://ctri.nic.in, registration number- CTRI/2020/06/025966.</p>","PeriodicalId":46447,"journal":{"name":"Craniomaxillofacial Trauma & Reconstruction","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.8000,"publicationDate":"2023-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10201193/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparison of Efficacy and Safety of Hybrid Arch Bar with Erich Arch Bar in the Management of Mandibular Fractures: A Randomized Clinical Trial.\",\"authors\":\"Hariram Sankar, Sachin Rai, Satnam S Jolly, Vidya Rattan\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/19433875221080019\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Study design: </strong>A clinical randomized control trial.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>To compare the efficacy and safety of Hybrid arch bar (HAB) with Erich arch bar (EAB) in fracture management of the mandible.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>In this randomized clinical trial, 44 patients were divided into 2 groups:- Group 1, N = 23 (EAB group) and Group 2, N = 21 (HAB group). The primary outcome was time taken for the application of arch bar, while the inner and outer glove puncture, operator prick, oral hygiene, arch bar stability, complications of HAB, and cost comparison were secondary outcomes.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The time taken for the application of arch bar in group 2 was significantly shorter than group 1 (55.66 ± 17.869 min vs 82.04 ± 12.197 min) and the frequency of outer glove puncture was also significantly lesser for group 2 (0 punctures vs 9 punctures). Better oral hygiene was found in group 2. EAB was cost-effective than HAB (Rs 700 ± 239.79 vs Rs 1742.50 ± 257.14). The stability of the arch bar was comparable in both groups. Group 2 had associated complications of root injury in 2 out of 252 screws placed and the screw head got covered by soft tissue in 137 out of 252 screws placed.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Thus, HAB was better than EAB with a shorter time of application, less risk of prick injury, and improved oral hygiene.Clinical trial registry name- clinical trials registry- India, URL-http://ctri.nic.in, registration number- CTRI/2020/06/025966.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":46447,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Craniomaxillofacial Trauma & Reconstruction\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-06-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10201193/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Craniomaxillofacial Trauma & Reconstruction\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/19433875221080019\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2022/3/29 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Craniomaxillofacial Trauma & Reconstruction","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/19433875221080019","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2022/3/29 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

研究设计临床随机对照试验:比较Hybrid弓形固定器(HAB)和Erich弓形固定器(EAB)在下颌骨骨折治疗中的有效性和安全性:在这项随机临床试验中,44 名患者被分为两组:第一组,23 人(EAB 组);第二组,21 人(HAB 组)。主要结果是应用牙弓杆所需时间,次要结果是内外手套穿刺、操作者刺伤、口腔卫生、牙弓杆稳定性、HAB并发症和成本比较:结果:第 2 组应用拱杆的时间明显短于第 1 组(55.66 ± 17.869 分钟 vs 82.04 ± 12.197 分钟),第 2 组外手套穿刺的频率也明显低于第 1 组(0 次 vs 9 次)。EAB 的成本效益高于 HAB(700±239.79 卢比 vs 1742.50±257.14 卢比)。两组的弓杆稳定性相当。第 2 组的 252 颗螺钉中有 2 颗造成了牙根损伤,252 颗螺钉中有 137 颗的螺钉头被软组织覆盖:因此,HAB比EAB更好,应用时间更短、刺伤风险更小、口腔卫生更好。临床试验登记处名称-临床试验登记处-印度,URL-http://ctri.nic.in,登记号-CTRI/2020/06/025966。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Comparison of Efficacy and Safety of Hybrid Arch Bar with Erich Arch Bar in the Management of Mandibular Fractures: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Study design: A clinical randomized control trial.

Objective: To compare the efficacy and safety of Hybrid arch bar (HAB) with Erich arch bar (EAB) in fracture management of the mandible.

Methods: In this randomized clinical trial, 44 patients were divided into 2 groups:- Group 1, N = 23 (EAB group) and Group 2, N = 21 (HAB group). The primary outcome was time taken for the application of arch bar, while the inner and outer glove puncture, operator prick, oral hygiene, arch bar stability, complications of HAB, and cost comparison were secondary outcomes.

Results: The time taken for the application of arch bar in group 2 was significantly shorter than group 1 (55.66 ± 17.869 min vs 82.04 ± 12.197 min) and the frequency of outer glove puncture was also significantly lesser for group 2 (0 punctures vs 9 punctures). Better oral hygiene was found in group 2. EAB was cost-effective than HAB (Rs 700 ± 239.79 vs Rs 1742.50 ± 257.14). The stability of the arch bar was comparable in both groups. Group 2 had associated complications of root injury in 2 out of 252 screws placed and the screw head got covered by soft tissue in 137 out of 252 screws placed.

Conclusions: Thus, HAB was better than EAB with a shorter time of application, less risk of prick injury, and improved oral hygiene.Clinical trial registry name- clinical trials registry- India, URL-http://ctri.nic.in, registration number- CTRI/2020/06/025966.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Craniomaxillofacial Trauma & Reconstruction
Craniomaxillofacial Trauma & Reconstruction DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE-
自引率
0.00%
发文量
39
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信