| 000 | 03212cam a2200337 a 4500 | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| 003 | EG-GiCUC | ||
| 005 | 20250223032817.0 | ||
| 008 | 210916s2020 ua dho f m 000 0 eng d | ||
| 040 |
_aEG-GiCUC _beng _cEG-GiCUC |
||
| 041 | 0 | _aeng | |
| 049 | _aDeposite | ||
| 097 | _aM.Sc | ||
| 099 | _aCai01.09.13.M.Sc.2020.He.E | ||
| 100 | 0 | _aHesham Ahmed Shatat | |
| 245 | 1 | 0 |
_aEvaluation of bone supported smart lock hybrid arch bar versus erich arch bar for the treatment of mandibular fractures : _bA randomized clinical trial / _cHesham Ahmed Shatat ; Supervised Nader Elbokle , Heba Mohammed Kamel |
| 246 | 1 | 5 |
_aتقييم شريط القوس الذكى الإغلاق الهجين المدعوم بالعظام مقابل شريط قوس أريك لعلاج كسور الفك السفلى : _bدراسة سريرية عشوائية |
| 260 |
_aCairo : _bHesham Ahmed Shatat , _c2020 |
||
| 300 |
_a125 P. : _bcharts , facsimiles ; _c25cm |
||
| 502 | _aThesis (M.Sc.) - Cairo University - Faculty of Oral and Dental Medicine - Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery | ||
| 520 | _aAim: 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 | ||
| 530 | _aIssued also as CD | ||
| 653 | 4 | _aBone supported smart lock | |
| 653 | 4 | _aHybrid arch bar | |
| 653 | 4 | _aMandibular fractures | |
| 700 | 0 |
_aHeba Mohammed Kamel , _eSupervisor |
|
| 700 | 0 |
_aNader Elbokle , _eSupervisor |
|
| 856 | _uhttp://172.23.153.220/th.pdf | ||
| 905 |
_aNazla _eRevisor |
||
| 905 |
_aShimaa _eCataloger |
||
| 942 |
_2ddc _cTH |
||
| 999 |
_c82191 _d82191 |
||