본문 바로가기
KERD
논문KCI 등재

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

1

조회

0

다운로드

0

인용

0

참고문헌

키워드

주제분류치의학

초록

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: Patients presenting with maxillary and mandibular fractures at our institution were included in this prospective, comparative study. Placement time and ease of occlusal reproducibility were recorded intraoperatively for Group A (hAB patients) and Group B (EAB patients). The primary outcome was comparison of the postoperative stability of the two arch bars. Postoperative measurements also included mucosal overgrowth, screw loosening or wire retightening, and replacement rates. The data were tabulated and computed with a P<0.05 considered statistically significant. Results: The study included 41 patients. A statistically significant difference was observed in postoperative stability scores (3) between Group A and Group B (85.0% vs 9.5%, P=0.001). The mean placement time in Group A (23.3 minutes) significantly differed from that in Group B (86.4 minutes) (P<0.001). The ease of intraoperative occlusion was not different between the two groups (P=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.

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: Patients presenting with maxillary and mandibular fractures at our institution were included in this prospective, comparative study. Placement time and ease of occlusal reproducibility were recorded intraoperatively for Group A (hAB patients) and Group B (EAB patients). The primary outcome was comparison of the postoperative stability of the two arch bars. Postoperative measurements also included mucosal overgrowth, screw loosening or wire retightening, and replacement rates. The data were tabulated and computed with a P<0.05 considered statistically significant. Results: The study included 41 patients. A statistically significant difference was observed in postoperative stability scores (3) between Group A and Group B (85.0% vs 9.5%, P=0.001). The mean placement time in Group A (23.3 minutes) significantly differed from that in Group B (86.4 minutes) (P<0.001). The ease of intraoperative occlusion was not different between the two groups (P=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.

참고문헌 (21)

  1. Pandey S, "Study of the pattern of maxillofacial fractures seen at a tertiary care hospital in north India", J Maxillofac Oral Surg, 14, pp.32~39 (2015)[DOI]
  2. Odono LT, "Facial trauma surgery: from primary repair to reconstruction", pp.168~185 (2020), Elsevier
  3. Rowe NL, "Rowe and Williams՚ maxillofacial injuries" (1994), Churchill Livingstone
  4. Morio W, "The Omnimax MMF system : a cohort study for clinical evaluation. Preliminary results of an ongoing study", J Oral Maxillofac Surg, 76(10Suppl), pp.E79~E80 (2018)[DOI]
  5. Park KN, "Design and application of hybrid maxillomandibular fixation for facial bone fractures", J Craniofac Surg, 24, pp.1801~1805 (2013)[DOI]
  6. West GH, "Treatment outcomes with the use of maxillomandibular fixation screws in the management of mandible fractures", J Oral Maxillofac Surg, 72, pp.112~120 (2014)[DOI]
  7. Hashemi HM, "Complications using intermaxillary fixation screws", J Oral Maxillofac Surg, 69, pp.1411~1414 (2011)[DOI]
  8. Wilt D, "Do hybrid arch bar screws pose a risk to the dentition?", Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol, 128, pp.E223~E224 (2019)[DOI]
  9. Rai A, "Are maxillomandibular fixation screws a better option than Erich arch bars in achieving maxillomandibular fixation? A randomized clinical study", J Oral Maxillofac Surg, 69, pp.3015~3018 (2011)[DOI]
  10. King BJ, "Hybrid arch bars reduce placement time and glove perforations compared with Erich arch bars during the application of intermaxillary fixation : a randomized controlled trial", J Oral Maxillofac Surg, 77, pp.1228.e1~1228.e8 (2019)[DOI]
  11. Nandini GD, "Self tapping screws v", s Erich arch bar for inter maxillary fixation : a comparative clinical study in the treatment of mandibular fractures, 2011, pp.10, 127~131
  12. Chao AH, "Bone-supported arch bars are associated with comparable outcomes to Erich arch bars in the treatment of mandibular fractures with intermaxillary fixation", J Oral Maxillofac Surg, 73, pp.306~313 (2015)[DOI]
  13. Roeder RA, "Is the SMARTLock hybrid maxillomandibular fixation system comparable to intermaxillary fixation screws in closed reduction of condylar fractures?", Ann Plast Surg, 81(6S Suppl 1), pp.S35~S38 (2018)[DOI]
  14. Pathak P, "A prospective comparative clinical study on modified screw retained arch bar(SRAB)and conventional Erich՚s arch bar(CEAB)", Oral Maxillofac Surg, 23, pp.285~289 (2019)[DOI]
  15. Rothe TM, "Comparative evaluation of efficacy of conventional arch bar, intermaxillary fixation screws, and modified arch bar for intermaxillary fixation", J Maxillofac Oral Surg, 18, pp.412~418 (2019)[DOI]
  16. van den Bergh B, "Conservative treatment of a mandibular condyle fracture : comparing intermaxillary fixation with screws or arch bar. A randomised clinical trial", J Craniomaxillofac Surg, 43, pp.671~676 (2015)[DOI]
  17. Cornelius CP, "The use of MMF screws : surgical technique, indications, contraindications, and common problems in review of the literature", Craniomaxillofac Trauma Reconstr, 3, pp.55~80 (2010)[DOI]
  18. Kendrick DE, "Stryker SMARTLock hybrid maxillomandibular fixation system : clinical application, complications, and radiographic findings", Plast Reconstr Surg, 137, pp.142e~150e (2016)[DOI]
  19. Kiwanuka E, "The use of Synthes MatrixWAVE bone anchored arch bars for closed treatment of multiple concurrent mandibular fractures", J Oral Biol Craniofac Res, 7, pp.153~157 (2017)[DOI]
  20. Bouloux GF, "Does the use of hybrid arch bars for the treatment of mandibular fractures reduce the length of surgery?", J Oral Maxillofac Surg, 76, pp.2592~2597 (2018)[DOI]
  21. Khelemsky R, "The hybrid arch bar is a cost-beneficial alternative in the open treatment of mandibular fractures", Craniomaxillofac Trauma Reconstr, 12, pp.128~133 (2019)[DOI]

관련 논문AI추천

악간고정 없는 하악골 골절의 관혈적 정복술: 후향적 연구김철환, 이충현대한구강악안면외과학회 · 대한구강악안면외과학회지2011 · 제37권 제4호Comparison of resorbable plates and titanium plates for fixatio stability of combined mandibular symphysis and angle fractures김성영, 김현민, 류재영, 임호영, 정창화, 조진영대한구강악안면외과학회 · 대한구강악안면외과학회지2014 · 제40권 제6호Cortical lag screw fixation for the management of mandibular injuriesElsayed Shadia Abdel-Hameed대한구강악안면외과학회 · 대한구강악안면외과학회지2020 · 제46권 제6호Outcomes of open versus closed treatment in the management of mandibular subcondylar fractures김성영, 김현민, 류재영, 조진영대한구강악안면외과학회 · 대한구강악안면외과학회지2014 · 제40권 제6호Transbuccal versus transoral approach for management of mandibular angle fractures: a prospective, clinical and radiographic studyHunny Jain, Kiran Savant, Purva Vijay Sinai Khandeparker, Rakshit Vijay Sinai Khandeparker, Vikas Berwal, Vikas Dhupar대한구강악안면외과학회 · 대한구강악안면외과학회지2016 · 제42권 제3호Open reduction and internal fixation with 2.0 mm monocortical miniplate in mandibular fracture: a retrospective study김수관, 김철만, 박현천, 신성민, 양성수, 오지수, 유재식, 임경섭, 정경인치의학연구원 · Oral Biology Research2014 · 제38권 제2호

이 간행물의 다른 논문 (9건)