header
Local cover image
Local cover image
Image from OpenLibrary

Evaluation of bone supported smart lock hybrid arch bar versus erich arch bar for the treatment of mandibular fractures : A randomized clinical trial / Hesham Ahmed Shatat ; Supervised Nader Elbokle , Heba Mohammed Kamel

By: Contributor(s): Material type: TextTextLanguage: English Publication details: Cairo : Hesham Ahmed Shatat , 2020Description: 125 P. : charts , facsimiles ; 25cmOther title:
  • تقييم شريط القوس الذكى الإغلاق الهجين المدعوم بالعظام مقابل شريط قوس أريك لعلاج كسور الفك السفلى : دراسة سريرية عشوائية [Added title page title]
Subject(s): Online resources: Available additional physical forms:
  • Issued also as CD
Dissertation note: Thesis (M.Sc.) - Cairo University - Faculty of Oral and Dental Medicine - Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery Summary: Aim: The purpose of this study was to compare IMF involving placement of titanium arch bars applied using screw fixation (Smart Lock Hybrid arch bar) with Erich arch bars secured with circumdental wires to the maxilla and mandible in the treatment of mandibular fractures. Methods: This study was conducted on 36 patients with mandibular fractures. The patients were divided randomly into two groups. MMF was performed to all cases either treated with CR or with ORIF. In group (A) All patients had MMF using Smart Lock Hybrid arch bar - titanium arch bars {u2013} fitted with eyelets by self-drilling locking screw fixation to the maxilla and mandible. While in group (B) Patients had MMF using Erich arch bars. The clinical evaluation included assessment of gingival health via GI, number of gloves penetration for the operator and assistant, time consumed for application and removal of the device, complications during surgery, as well as, determination of patient satisfaction via questionnaires (HADS, UW-QOL v4 and VAS) and cost. Results: Regarding time of application or removal of the arch bar and number of gloves{u2019} penetration; Smart Lock Hybrid arch bar group showed faster time and lower glove penetration than Erich arch bar group.The gingival index after arch bar removal in Group A was significant lower than that in group B. In group A, patients showed complications such as gingival growth over the eyelets of arch bar and screws, mucosal tears and screw looseness. One case in group A needed dental treatment (endodontic treatment) for the lower first molar as a result of root injury. Group A showed better patient satisfaction score than those of group B .The Smart Lock Hybrid arch bar was higher cost than Erich arch bar
Tags from this library: No tags from this library for this title. Log in to add tags.
Star ratings
    Average rating: 0.0 (0 votes)
Holdings
Item type Current library Home library Call number Copy number Status Barcode
Thesis Thesis قاعة الرسائل الجامعية - الدور الاول المكتبة المركزبة الجديدة - جامعة القاهرة Cai01.09.13.M.Sc.2020.He.E (Browse shelf(Opens below)) Not for loan 01010110084233000
CD - Rom CD - Rom مخـــزن الرســائل الجـــامعية - البدروم المكتبة المركزبة الجديدة - جامعة القاهرة Cai01.09.13.M.Sc.2020.He.E (Browse shelf(Opens below)) 84233.CD Not for loan 01020110084233000

Thesis (M.Sc.) - Cairo University - Faculty of Oral and Dental Medicine - Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery

Aim: The purpose of this study was to compare IMF involving placement of titanium arch bars applied using screw fixation (Smart Lock Hybrid arch bar) with Erich arch bars secured with circumdental wires to the maxilla and mandible in the treatment of mandibular fractures. Methods: This study was conducted on 36 patients with mandibular fractures. The patients were divided randomly into two groups. MMF was performed to all cases either treated with CR or with ORIF. In group (A) All patients had MMF using Smart Lock Hybrid arch bar - titanium arch bars {u2013} fitted with eyelets by self-drilling locking screw fixation to the maxilla and mandible. While in group (B) Patients had MMF using Erich arch bars. The clinical evaluation included assessment of gingival health via GI, number of gloves penetration for the operator and assistant, time consumed for application and removal of the device, complications during surgery, as well as, determination of patient satisfaction via questionnaires (HADS, UW-QOL v4 and VAS) and cost. Results: Regarding time of application or removal of the arch bar and number of gloves{u2019} penetration; Smart Lock Hybrid arch bar group showed faster time and lower glove penetration than Erich arch bar group.The gingival index after arch bar removal in Group A was significant lower than that in group B. In group A, patients showed complications such as gingival growth over the eyelets of arch bar and screws, mucosal tears and screw looseness. One case in group A needed dental treatment (endodontic treatment) for the lower first molar as a result of root injury. Group A showed better patient satisfaction score than those of group B .The Smart Lock Hybrid arch bar was higher cost than Erich arch bar

Issued also as CD

There are no comments on this title.

to post a comment.

Click on an image to view it in the image viewer

Local cover image