Comparative assessment of two methods used for interdental immobilization

Ayoub, Ashraf; Rowson, John

doi:10.1016/s1010-5182(03)00022-2

Cited by 36 publications

(36 citation statements)

References 5 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The author also compared the two methods used for interdental immobilization and the damage to the periodontium surrounding the teeth. After removal of interdental devices, more marginal periodontitis was noticed in patients who had arch bar fixation compared to the other group [4]. In the present study, an objective measurement was done using gingival index to measure the severity of gingivitis and on the day of removal of the appliances, it was recorded that there were significantly more number of patients with severe gingivitis in the arch bar group patients than among the patients in vacuum formed splints group.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 63%

“…In the present study, an objective measurement was done using gingival index to measure the severity of gingivitis and on the day of removal of the appliances, it was recorded that there were significantly more number of patients with severe gingivitis in the arch bar group patients than among the patients in vacuum formed splints group. Ayub et al [4] also found that in their study, patients reported considerable difficulty in maintaining oral hygiene measures with arch bar fixation, leading to associated periodontal problems. Poor oral hygiene was reported in many patients in a study on patients with mandibular fractures by Eid et al [5].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 81%

“…Newer techniques used for intermaxillary fixation are self drilling screws which prevents binding in the bone [3] and dimac wires which demonstrate less needle stick injuries in comparison with arch bar [4].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Treatment of Mandibular Fractures Using Intermaxillary Fixation and Vacuum Forming Splints: A Comparative Study

Trupthi

Chowdhury²,

Shah

et al. 2013

J. Maxillofac. Oral Surg.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective The study was done to compare the clinical efficacy of vacuum formed splints and arch bar in treating minimally displaced mandibular fractures. Method Forty patients were included in two groups. Group 1 was treated with custom made splints and group 2 with conventional arch bar. Patients were recalled on 3rd, 7th, 14th day and on the day of removal of the appliance. Periodontal status, stability of appliance and chair side time were evaluated. Results The mean chair side time taken by vacuum formed splint was 18.05 min and conventional arch bar fixation was 68.25 min. 8.3 % of patients with vacuum formed splints had poor oral hygiene in comparison with 25 % of patients with conventional arch bar. 70 % of patients with vacuum formed splints and 60 % of the patients with conventional arch bars were comfortable in mastication during treatment. Conclusion Vacuum formed splints has better advantages over arch bar with respect to chair side time, periodontal health, patient's compliance of maintaining oral hygiene, mastication and speech. Vacuum formed splints avoid needle stick injuries. So, they can be used for intermaxillary fixation in minimally displaced mandibular fractures.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 63%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 81%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Treatment of Mandibular Fractures Using Intermaxillary Fixation and Vacuum Forming Splints: A Comparative Study

Trupthi

Chowdhury²,

Shah

et al. 2013

J. Maxillofac. Oral Surg.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…All screws can cause glove perforations and percutaneous injuries. Dimac wires are quick to apply and are safer than arch bars but there is still a possibility of skin-penetrating injury [17]. Orthodontic elastic chain may be used for IMF [20].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Handling of sharp instruments like wires heightens the risk of glove perforation so drastically that often, perforations can be found within a few minutes after the start of surgery. The arch bar technique (with its above mentioned advantages) has been in use for long period and its use should not be discontinued just because of the risk of penetrating injury resulting in significant exposure rather one should alter the methods of wire usage and application for example some other methods like orthodontic brackets [11], bracket bars bonded to teeth [11], Dimac wires [17], Rapid IMF [8] etc. to prevent penetrating injuries.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluation of Two Different Methods of Arch Bar Application: A Comparative Prospective Study

Chhabra

Thapar

2014

J. Maxillofac. Oral Surg.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose To comparatively evaluate the efficacy of a pencil type wire twister and the normal wire twister in terms of various parameters during arch bars application. Method The study involved residents of the department enrolled in MDS course. Two study groups of 60 patients each were made by randomly selecting the patients from the outpatient department of Oral and Maxillofacial surgery who required arch bar application. Group A included the patients who underwent upper and lower arch bar application with the use of a pencil type twister and group B included patients who underwent arch bar application with a normal wire twister. All respondents were given a questionnaire after the completion of procedure involving the use of medical sharps. The paired samples t test was used for statistical analysis. Result Among group A, mean glove perforations, actual wire stick injuries, mean time taken to complete the procedure, mean wire breakage during the procedure was less than in group B. Comfort level of patients and Ease of operator while performing the procedure was more in group A than in group B. Frictional abrasion of the finger was not associated with the use of pencil type twister. Overall rating of the procedure was more in group A than group B.Conclusion The use of pencil type wire twister outweighs normal wire twister in various ways. It increases the overall efficacy of the operator during the procedure.

show abstract

A Clinical Comparison and Economic Evaluation of Erich Arch Bars, 4-Point Fixation, and Bone-Supported Arch Bars for Maxillomandibular Fixation

Edmunds

McKnight

Runyan

et al. 2019

JAMA Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

IMPORTANCE Erich arch bars, 4-point fixation, and bone-supported arch bars are currently used in maxillomandibular fixation, although to what extent they differ in terms of overall charges and clinical outcomes has yet to be reported. OBJECTIVE To determine the association of Erich arch bars, 4-point fixation, and bone-supported arch bars in maxillomandibular fixation with hospital charges and clinical outcomes.

show abstract

Comparative assessment of two methods used for interdental immobilization

Cited by 36 publications

References 5 publications

Treatment of Mandibular Fractures Using Intermaxillary Fixation and Vacuum Forming Splints: A Comparative Study

Treatment of Mandibular Fractures Using Intermaxillary Fixation and Vacuum Forming Splints: A Comparative Study

Evaluation of Two Different Methods of Arch Bar Application: A Comparative Prospective Study

A Clinical Comparison and Economic Evaluation of Erich Arch Bars, 4-Point Fixation, and Bone-Supported Arch Bars for Maxillomandibular Fixation

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About