DefinePK

Abstract

Background: Maxillofacial trauma, increasingly common due to road travel and socio-economic activities, frequently involves mandibular fractures. Effective treatment requires precise reduction and fixation to restore occlusion.
Aim: To compare the efficacy of bone-supported (Hybrid) vs tooth-supported (Conventional) arch bars in mandibular fracture management.
Materials and Methods: This study, conducted at Sri Aurobindo College of Dentistry, included 28 patients with isolated mandibular fractures, divided equally into two groups. Group A (Hybrid arch bar): 13 males, 1 female. Group B (Conventional arch bar): 12 males, 2 females. Parameters assessed included placement/removal time, oral hygiene, complications, and stability.
Results: Group A showed significantly faster placement and removal times. Average difference in removal time was 9 minutes and for placement is 30 minutes. Oral Hygiene Index (OHI) scores were better in Group A on the 28th postoperative day. Root perforation and mucosal coverage over screws were observed in Group A; glove perforations were more frequent in Group B.
Conclusion: Hybrid arch bars offer a viable alternative to conventional ones, with improved fixation time and hygiene outcomes, though with specific complications to consider.