title: Comparative assessment of two methods used for interdental immobilization.
abstract: OBJECTIVE
  This investigation was carried out to compare Dimac wires with arch bars for interdental immobilization.
  
  
  METHODS
  The assessment was conducted on 50 patients who had mandibular fractures and in whom intermaxillary fixation was required as a part of the treatment. The time required for applying each method of fixation, the needle-stick injuries that occurred during their application, and the periodontal damage that followed interdental immobilization was investigated.
  
  
  RESULTS
  The mean time required for the application of Dimac wires was significantly less than that required for arch bars. The needle-stick injuries were significantly less with Dimac wires. Patients reported difficulty with oral hygiene with arch bars in place. This was associated with periodontal damage following removal of fixation.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  Dimac wires is safer to use and less traumatic to the periodontium
authors.affiliation: University of Glasgow Dental School & Canniesburn Hospital, Glasgow, UK. a.f.ayoub@dental.gla.ac.uk
authors.forename: Ashraf F
authors.initials: AF
authors.lastname: Ayoub
authors.forename: John
authors.initials: J
authors.lastname: Rowson
mesh_terms: D005592:Fracture Fixation / Q000295:instrumentation / Q000379:methods; D006801:Humans; D019248:Jaw Fixation Techniques / Q000009:adverse effects / Q000295:instrumentation*; D008337:Mandibular Fractures / Q000601:surgery; D016602:Needlestick Injuries / Q000209:etiology / Q000517:prevention & control; D010519:Periodontium / Q000293:injuries; D013997:Time Factors