上颌下颌固定技术:新旧。

IF 1.9 4区 医学 Q2 OTORHINOLARYNGOLOGY
Sarah Rathnam Akkina, Scott Eric Bevans, Alan Wellington Johnson
{"title":"上颌下颌固定技术:新旧。","authors":"Sarah Rathnam Akkina, Scott Eric Bevans, Alan Wellington Johnson","doi":"10.1097/MOO.0000000000001043","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose of review: </strong>Maxillomandibular fixation (MMF) is essential for many surgeries on the bony middle and lower face. MMF techniques have multiplied in recent years, each with unique benefits and drawbacks. This review catalogs MMF trends and evidence for and against the most prevalent MMF methods.</p><p><strong>Recent findings: </strong>Traditional Erich arch bars remain the most robust technique in establishing MMF, particularly for comminuted/complicated fractures. Drawbacks are increased operative time required, wire stick injuries, poor oral hygiene, and gingival trauma. Screw-based techniques save considerable time but cannot stabilize comminuted fractures as adequately and risk tooth root and nerve damage. Embrasure wires offer time and cost savings but are solely for intraoperative use and uncomplicated fractures. Similarly, dental occlusion ties provide the benefits of reduced time and wire sticks, with the added capability of postoperative use, but require adequate dentition and minimally displaced fractures. Recent studies show decreased use of wire-based techniques, with increased adoption of hybrid systems and dental occlusion ties.</p><p><strong>Summary: </strong>MMF techniques each have unique advantages and weaknesses. Selection should depend on surgical goals, including the severity of fractures, the need to maintain occlusion postoperatively, application/removal time, safety, and patient comfort.</p>","PeriodicalId":55195,"journal":{"name":"Current Opinion in Otolaryngology & Head and Neck Surgery","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.9000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Techniques for maxillomandibular fixation: old and new.\",\"authors\":\"Sarah Rathnam Akkina, Scott Eric Bevans, Alan Wellington Johnson\",\"doi\":\"10.1097/MOO.0000000000001043\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Purpose of review: </strong>Maxillomandibular fixation (MMF) is essential for many surgeries on the bony middle and lower face. MMF techniques have multiplied in recent years, each with unique benefits and drawbacks. This review catalogs MMF trends and evidence for and against the most prevalent MMF methods.</p><p><strong>Recent findings: </strong>Traditional Erich arch bars remain the most robust technique in establishing MMF, particularly for comminuted/complicated fractures. Drawbacks are increased operative time required, wire stick injuries, poor oral hygiene, and gingival trauma. Screw-based techniques save considerable time but cannot stabilize comminuted fractures as adequately and risk tooth root and nerve damage. Embrasure wires offer time and cost savings but are solely for intraoperative use and uncomplicated fractures. Similarly, dental occlusion ties provide the benefits of reduced time and wire sticks, with the added capability of postoperative use, but require adequate dentition and minimally displaced fractures. Recent studies show decreased use of wire-based techniques, with increased adoption of hybrid systems and dental occlusion ties.</p><p><strong>Summary: </strong>MMF techniques each have unique advantages and weaknesses. Selection should depend on surgical goals, including the severity of fractures, the need to maintain occlusion postoperatively, application/removal time, safety, and patient comfort.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":55195,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Current Opinion in Otolaryngology & Head and Neck Surgery\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-04-02\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Current Opinion in Otolaryngology & Head and Neck Surgery\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1097/MOO.0000000000001043\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"OTORHINOLARYNGOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Current Opinion in Otolaryngology & Head and Neck Surgery","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/MOO.0000000000001043","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"OTORHINOLARYNGOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

回顾目的:上颌骨下颌固定(MMF)在许多骨性中、下面部手术中是必不可少的。近年来,MMF技术成倍增长,每种技术都有其独特的优点和缺点。这篇综述列出了MMF的趋势以及支持和反对最流行的MMF方法的证据。最近的研究发现:传统的Erich弓棒仍然是建立MMF最可靠的技术,特别是对于粉碎性/复杂骨折。缺点是需要增加手术时间,钢丝棒损伤,口腔卫生差,牙龈创伤。螺钉技术节省了大量时间,但不能充分稳定粉碎性骨折,并有损伤牙根和神经的风险。Embrasure钢丝可节省时间和成本,但仅用于术中使用和非复杂骨折。类似地,牙咬合带提供了减少时间和金属丝棒的好处,并增加了术后使用的能力,但需要足够的牙列和最小位移的骨折。最近的研究表明,使用基于金属丝的技术减少,越来越多地采用混合系统和牙齿咬合带。摘要:MMF技术各有其独特的优点和缺点。选择应取决于手术目标,包括骨折的严重程度、术后维持咬合的需要、应用/取出时间、安全性和患者舒适度。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Techniques for maxillomandibular fixation: old and new.

Purpose of review: Maxillomandibular fixation (MMF) is essential for many surgeries on the bony middle and lower face. MMF techniques have multiplied in recent years, each with unique benefits and drawbacks. This review catalogs MMF trends and evidence for and against the most prevalent MMF methods.

Recent findings: Traditional Erich arch bars remain the most robust technique in establishing MMF, particularly for comminuted/complicated fractures. Drawbacks are increased operative time required, wire stick injuries, poor oral hygiene, and gingival trauma. Screw-based techniques save considerable time but cannot stabilize comminuted fractures as adequately and risk tooth root and nerve damage. Embrasure wires offer time and cost savings but are solely for intraoperative use and uncomplicated fractures. Similarly, dental occlusion ties provide the benefits of reduced time and wire sticks, with the added capability of postoperative use, but require adequate dentition and minimally displaced fractures. Recent studies show decreased use of wire-based techniques, with increased adoption of hybrid systems and dental occlusion ties.

Summary: MMF techniques each have unique advantages and weaknesses. Selection should depend on surgical goals, including the severity of fractures, the need to maintain occlusion postoperatively, application/removal time, safety, and patient comfort.

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
CiteScore
2.90
自引率
0.00%
发文量
96
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: Current Opinion in Otolaryngology & Head and Neck Surgery is a bimonthly publication offering a unique and wide ranging perspective on the key developments in the field. Each issue features hand-picked review articles from our team of expert editors. With eleven disciplines published across the year – including maxillofacial surgery, head and neck oncology and speech therapy and rehabilitation – every issue also contains annotated references detailing the merits of the most important papers.
×
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