Scholarlink

Aim <p>To compare the effectiveness of hybrid arch bars with Erich arch bars for intermaxillary fixation in mandibular fracture treatment.</p> Materials and Methods <p>The study consisted of 22 patients presenting with mandibular fractures. Patients undergoing IMF using Erich arch bars were allocated to group 1 and hybrid arch bars to group 2, with an equal number of patients being allocated in each group. Patients were recalled for a follow-up at three-week intervals to evaluate the gingival health, patient satisfaction and operator satisfaction.</p> Results <p>Twenty-two patients were enrolled in this study; <i>p</i> value of the gingival index was recorded in both the groups at pre-, mid- and postoperative periods, which were 0.947, 0.858 and 0.338, respectively. The mean value of the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale was 3.90 for Erich arch bar and 4.63 for the hybrid arch bar. The depression component did not have much variation. The mean Visual Analog Scale values for Erich arch bar and hybrid arch bar were 3.36 and 2.45, respectively. Patient satisfaction values were not statistically significant in both groups. Operator satisfaction for the Erich and hybrid arch bar groups was 5.36 and 5.54, respectively.</p> Conclusion <p>Hybrid arch bars are as effective as Erich arch bars in mandibular fractures, requiring closed reduction and intermaxillary fixation but with an inherent set of complications.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Comparative Evaluation of Erich Arch Bars with Hybrid Arch Bars for Maxillomandibular Fixation in the Treatment of Mandibular Fractures: A Prospective Clinical Study

  • 期刊论文

  • 发表日期：

    2025年10月1日

查看全文
  • Saumya Kapoor,
  • Parimala Sagar,
  • Kavitha Prasad

摘要

Aim

To compare the effectiveness of hybrid arch bars with Erich arch bars for intermaxillary fixation in mandibular fracture treatment.

Materials and Methods

The study consisted of 22 patients presenting with mandibular fractures. Patients undergoing IMF using Erich arch bars were allocated to group 1 and hybrid arch bars to group 2, with an equal number of patients being allocated in each group. Patients were recalled for a follow-up at three-week intervals to evaluate the gingival health, patient satisfaction and operator satisfaction.

Results

Twenty-two patients were enrolled in this study; p value of the gingival index was recorded in both the groups at pre-, mid- and postoperative periods, which were 0.947, 0.858 and 0.338, respectively. The mean value of the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale was 3.90 for Erich arch bar and 4.63 for the hybrid arch bar. The depression component did not have much variation. The mean Visual Analog Scale values for Erich arch bar and hybrid arch bar were 3.36 and 2.45, respectively. Patient satisfaction values were not statistically significant in both groups. Operator satisfaction for the Erich and hybrid arch bar groups was 5.36 and 5.54, respectively.

Conclusion

Hybrid arch bars are as effective as Erich arch bars in mandibular fractures, requiring closed reduction and intermaxillary fixation but with an inherent set of complications.