Clinical Outcomes of ULTRA EZY Bar vs Erich Arch Bar in Conservative Management of Maxillofacial Fractures: A Randomized Controlled Trial

• Published in: Journal of maxillofacial and oral surgery Vol. 23; no. 1; pp. 122 - 128
• Main Authors: Kapoor, Shivangini, Gupta, Ashish, Bansal, Pankaj, Sharma, Sneha D., Gupta, Himani, Srivastava, Rachit
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: New Delhi Springer India 01.02.2024; Springer Nature B.V
• Subjects: Comparative Study; Dentistry; Firearms; Fractures; Injuries; Medicine; Medicine & Public Health; Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery; Oral hygiene; Otorhinolaryngology; Patients; Plastic Surgery; Surgery; Teeth; Wire; Ultralock EZY Bar; Erich Arch Bar; Maxillofacial fractures
• ISSN: 0972-8279; 0974-942X
• DOI: 10.1007/s12663-022-01821-3

Objective Various techniques have been employed from time to time to achieve maxillomandibular fixation, and arch bars provide an effective and versatile means of maxillomandibular fixation, and however, some of the issues occurring with it have been eliminated with the introduction of Ultralock EZY bar. The aim of the present study is to compare the advantages and disadvantages of Ultralock Ezy bar over the Erich arch bar in mid-face fracture or maxillary fracture or mandibular fracture or both requiring conservative treatment. Materials and Methods A total of 20 patients reported to the Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery in Sudha Rustagi Dental College and Hospital, Faridabad, with mid-face fracture/maxillary fracture, mandibular fracture or both. The treatment plan required intermaxillary fixation. As a part of treatment plan, group was selected randomly divided into 20 arches in each group that is test arch group and control arch group. Test arch group included arches in which Ultralock EZY bar was done. Control arch group included arches in which Erich arch bar was done. The parameters compared in both the groups were surgical time taken, injuries due to wires, arch bar stability, oral hygiene index, patient acceptance and comfort, pulp vitality, and complication (if any). Results The average surgical time taken was less, and oral hygiene status and patient acceptance were better in test group. There was not much statistically significant difference in pulp vitality but number of cases with absence of pulp vitality were more in test group. Conclusion This study emphasizes the use of Ultralock Ezy bar as a quick and easy method than Erich arch bar. Oral hygiene maintenance was comparatively better in patients with Ultralock Ezy bar than those with Erich arch bar. For the patients who require long-term IMF, Ultralock Ezy bars can be a viable option.