Are Embrasure Wires Effective and Reliable Method for Intraoperative Maxillomandibular Fixation in Mandibular Fractures?

Author(s):  
Tejinder Kaur ◽  
Amit Dhawan ◽  
Ramandeep Singh Bhullar ◽  
Sarika Kapila ◽  
Sakshi Gupta ◽  
...  
2017 ◽  
Vol 17 (2) ◽  
pp. 211-217
Author(s):  
Yashmeet Kaur Sandhu ◽  
Sarfaraz Padda ◽  
Tejinder Kaur ◽  
Amit Dhawan ◽  
Sarika Kapila ◽  
...  

2018 ◽  
Vol 11 (2) ◽  
pp. 118-123
Author(s):  
Sanjay Rastogi ◽  
Tousif Ahmed ◽  
Kolli Giri ◽  
Ramakant Dandriyal ◽  
Indra B. Niranjana Prasad ◽  
...  

The aim of this prospective study was to appraise the role of embrasure wiring in the treatment of mandibular fractures over the arch bar as adjunctive techniques of maxillomandibular fixation (MMF). This study was conducted on 40 patients who were surgically treated for mandibular fractures with accessory use of MMF (embrasure: group A vs. arch bars: group B). All patients were evaluated for demographic data, etiology, and location of fracture. Characteristically, the complications, including wire injury, infection, and malocclusion, were recorded. The data were analyzed using Student's t-test and chi-square test as appropriate. Statistical significance was set at p < 0.05). In this study, data from 40 patients were included. In group A (embrasure wiring), time required for placement of MMF was significantly less than (7.85 ± 0.81 minutes) that in group B, and also there was less incidence of wire prick to the operator in group A than in group B ( p < 0.05). However, in terms of wire prick and malocclusion, no statistically significant difference was noted in groups A and B ( p > 0.05). Patient treated with embrasure wiring intermaxillary fixation had better outcomes especially in terms of time of placement and less incidence of wire prick injury when compared with arch bar.


2020 ◽  
Vol 11 (SPL4) ◽  
pp. 1222-1225
Author(s):  
Subhashini Ramasubbu ◽  
Shivangi Gaur ◽  
Ramvihari Thota ◽  
Abdul Wahab P U

Maxillofacial trauma is any physical injury to the facial bones. Facial bones are frequently fractured bones in RTA, Assault, Domestic violence etc. Facial trauma includes Maxillary fractures, Mandibular fractures, Orbital Fractures, Nasal Bone Fractures, soft tissue injury such as lacerations, bruises etc. Over the years, there are many refinements in the management of maxillofacial trauma. The incidence of maxillofacial trauma is more in males because they are involved in more physical activities and assault compared to women. In Older times for facial bone fractures, surgeons performed maxillomandibular fixation using wire osteosynthesis for minimum three weeks to 6 weeks, and mouth opening was difficult, poor oral hygiene leading to periodontal problems, difficulty in speech and masticatory functions. The management of maxillofacial trauma includes the use of Maxillomandibular fixation using wire osteosynthesis, conventional mini plates and 3-D plates. For the management of facial bone fractures, Maxillofacial surgeons perform open reduction and internal fixation(ORIF) whenever needed. In the case of ORIF, Surgeons use mini plates either 3D or Conventional Plates for stabilising the fractured segments. This technique requires skill and experience and is also expensive. The advantages of this method are improved quality of life. The objective of this review is to compare 3-Dimensional plates and Conventional Plates in Maxillofacial trauma.


2014 ◽  
Vol 15 (2) ◽  
pp. 53 ◽  
Author(s):  
Seung Wook Song ◽  
Jin Sik Burm ◽  
Won Yong Yang ◽  
Sang Yoon Kang

1995 ◽  
Vol 74 (12) ◽  
pp. 814-820 ◽  
Author(s):  
Richard F. Busch

Previously, this author and others described a technique of maxillomandibular fixation utilizing intraoral cortical bone screws and intermaxillary wires. This procedure has been very successful in achieving superior fixation of relatively undisplaced fractures in a fraction of the time previously required for arch bar application. A method was sought to extend the procedure to include displaced mandibular fractures as well. Miniplates have been utilized through the same intraoral approach to provide reduction of displaced fragments. Excellent fixation has been achieved with anatomical reduction while utilizing less than half the previous operating time. It appears that the majority of mandibular fractures can be treated with this combination of techniques.


2019 ◽  
Vol 26 (04) ◽  
Author(s):  
Manoj Kumar ◽  
Syed Fida Hussain Shah ◽  
Suneel Kumar Panjabi ◽  
Soonhan Abdullah ◽  
Salman Shams

Objectives: To compare the efficacy of Maxillomandibular fixation screws versus Erich Arch bar in the management of mandibular fractures. Study Design: Comparative case series study. Setting: Department of Oral & Maxillofacial Surgery, Faculty of Dentistry, Liaquat University Hospital Hyderabad, Jamshoro. Period: 29/03/2016 to 28/09/2016. Methodology: Forty patients of either gender with age above 18 years with mandibular fracture requiring closed reduction were included. 20 patients of Groups A, treated with Maxillomandibular fixation screws and 20 patients of Group B treated with Erich Arch bar. Mean operative time was noted. All patients were followed up on every week up to four weeks. The statistical analysis via t-test was used and P-value <0.05 was categorized as significant. Results: In MMF screw group 13(65.0%) patients were male and 7(35.0%) patients were female whereas in Arch Bar group, 15(75.0%) were male and 5(25.0%) were female. Evidence of wire stick injury was found positive in 2(10.0%) and 4(20.0%) patients among MMF screw and Arch Bar groups respectively. In MMF screw group, mean operative time was 84.20±18.04 minutes whereas in Arch Bar groups it was 121.80±13.68 minutes. The mean operative time is significantly reduced in MMF screw group as compared to Arch Bar group with p value <0.01. Conclusion: We conclude that Maxillomandibular fixation with screws was more worthwhile mode as matched to the conservative Erich arch bars for managing the mandibular fractures.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document