Evaluation of Bone Supported Ultra Lock Ezy Bar versus Erich Arch Bar for the Treatment of Mandibular Fractures
Introduction: Maxillofacial trauma treatment involves maxillomandibular fixation. Despite reduced need for post-operative MMF with plating devices, temporary intraoperative MMF is still necessary for proper tooth positioning. The aim of this research is to evaluate the cost-effectiveness, impact on...
Saved in:
| Main Authors: | , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Wolters Kluwer Medknow Publications
2024-12-01
|
| Series: | Journal of Pharmacy and Bioallied Sciences |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://journals.lww.com/10.4103/jpbs.jpbs_568_24 |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| _version_ | 1841544124511027200 |
|---|---|
| author | Yesha M. Desai B Saravana Kumar |
| author_facet | Yesha M. Desai B Saravana Kumar |
| author_sort | Yesha M. Desai |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | Introduction:
Maxillofacial trauma treatment involves maxillomandibular fixation. Despite reduced need for post-operative MMF with plating devices, temporary intraoperative MMF is still necessary for proper tooth positioning. The aim of this research is to evaluate the cost-effectiveness, impact on patient gingival health, glove perforation, and time required for utilizing the Ultra Lock Ezy Bar compared to Erich’s Arch Bar.
Methods:
Ten patients with mandibular fractures were randomly split into two groups for treatment: Group A (study) and Group B (control). Group A received treatment with an Ultra Lock Ezy Bar and screws, while Group B received treatment using an Erich’s Arch Bar and wires. Follow-ups were done for suture removal, wound healing, and evaluations on gingival index, glove perforations, and treatment times.
Results:
In application time, group A had mean of 44.00 ± 3.391 and group B had 90 ± 9.354, with no significant difference. Neither group showed significant mean differences in removal time. Group B had statistically significant glove perforation (4.80 ± 0.837) compared to 0 in group A. Pre-operative gingival index comparison showed significance. After four weeks, group B’s mean index was 1.720 ± 0.2387 and group A’s was 1.120 ± 0.2049 with no statistical distinctions.
Conclusion:
To sum up, the randomized control experiment produced convincing results when comparing Erich’s Arch Bar with Ultra Lock Ezy Bar for mandibular fixation in ten patients. With notably quicker application and removal times, no glove perforations, and comparable gingival health immediately following surgery, Ultra Lock Ezy Bar showed clear benefits. |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj-art-3e596a34754b4be09eeb4f91eee38704 |
| institution | Kabale University |
| issn | 0976-4879 0975-7406 |
| language | English |
| publishDate | 2024-12-01 |
| publisher | Wolters Kluwer Medknow Publications |
| record_format | Article |
| series | Journal of Pharmacy and Bioallied Sciences |
| spelling | doaj-art-3e596a34754b4be09eeb4f91eee387042025-01-12T14:12:22ZengWolters Kluwer Medknow PublicationsJournal of Pharmacy and Bioallied Sciences0976-48790975-74062024-12-0116Suppl 4S3236S323810.4103/jpbs.jpbs_568_24Evaluation of Bone Supported Ultra Lock Ezy Bar versus Erich Arch Bar for the Treatment of Mandibular FracturesYesha M. DesaiB Saravana KumarIntroduction: Maxillofacial trauma treatment involves maxillomandibular fixation. Despite reduced need for post-operative MMF with plating devices, temporary intraoperative MMF is still necessary for proper tooth positioning. The aim of this research is to evaluate the cost-effectiveness, impact on patient gingival health, glove perforation, and time required for utilizing the Ultra Lock Ezy Bar compared to Erich’s Arch Bar. Methods: Ten patients with mandibular fractures were randomly split into two groups for treatment: Group A (study) and Group B (control). Group A received treatment with an Ultra Lock Ezy Bar and screws, while Group B received treatment using an Erich’s Arch Bar and wires. Follow-ups were done for suture removal, wound healing, and evaluations on gingival index, glove perforations, and treatment times. Results: In application time, group A had mean of 44.00 ± 3.391 and group B had 90 ± 9.354, with no significant difference. Neither group showed significant mean differences in removal time. Group B had statistically significant glove perforation (4.80 ± 0.837) compared to 0 in group A. Pre-operative gingival index comparison showed significance. After four weeks, group B’s mean index was 1.720 ± 0.2387 and group A’s was 1.120 ± 0.2049 with no statistical distinctions. Conclusion: To sum up, the randomized control experiment produced convincing results when comparing Erich’s Arch Bar with Ultra Lock Ezy Bar for mandibular fixation in ten patients. With notably quicker application and removal times, no glove perforations, and comparable gingival health immediately following surgery, Ultra Lock Ezy Bar showed clear benefits.https://journals.lww.com/10.4103/jpbs.jpbs_568_24erich’s arch barimfmandibular fracturesmmfultra lock ezy bar |
| spellingShingle | Yesha M. Desai B Saravana Kumar Evaluation of Bone Supported Ultra Lock Ezy Bar versus Erich Arch Bar for the Treatment of Mandibular Fractures Journal of Pharmacy and Bioallied Sciences erich’s arch bar imf mandibular fractures mmf ultra lock ezy bar |
| title | Evaluation of Bone Supported Ultra Lock Ezy Bar versus Erich Arch Bar for the Treatment of Mandibular Fractures |
| title_full | Evaluation of Bone Supported Ultra Lock Ezy Bar versus Erich Arch Bar for the Treatment of Mandibular Fractures |
| title_fullStr | Evaluation of Bone Supported Ultra Lock Ezy Bar versus Erich Arch Bar for the Treatment of Mandibular Fractures |
| title_full_unstemmed | Evaluation of Bone Supported Ultra Lock Ezy Bar versus Erich Arch Bar for the Treatment of Mandibular Fractures |
| title_short | Evaluation of Bone Supported Ultra Lock Ezy Bar versus Erich Arch Bar for the Treatment of Mandibular Fractures |
| title_sort | evaluation of bone supported ultra lock ezy bar versus erich arch bar for the treatment of mandibular fractures |
| topic | erich’s arch bar imf mandibular fractures mmf ultra lock ezy bar |
| url | https://journals.lww.com/10.4103/jpbs.jpbs_568_24 |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT yeshamdesai evaluationofbonesupportedultralockezybarversusericharchbarforthetreatmentofmandibularfractures AT bsaravanakumar evaluationofbonesupportedultralockezybarversusericharchbarforthetreatmentofmandibularfractures |