Page 93 - 2022 Spring JSOM

Disclosure 10. Rothe TM, Kumar P, Shah N, Shah R, Mahajan A, Kumar A.
None of the authors reported any disclosures. Comparative evaluation of efficacy of conventional arch bar, in-
termaxillary fixation screws, and modified arch bar for intermax-
illary fixation. J Maxillofac Oral Surg. 2019;18(3):412–418.
References 11. Qureshi AA, Reddy UK, Warad NM, Badal S, Jamadar AA, Qur-
1. Lew TA, Walker JA, Wenke JC, et al. Characterization of cranio- ishi N. Intermaxillary fixation screws versus Erich arch bars in
maxillofacial battle injuries sustained by United States service mandibular fractures: a comparative study and review of litera-
members in the current conflicts of Iraq and Afghanistan. J Oral ture. Ann Maxillofac Surg. 2016;6:25–30.
Maxillofacial Surg. 2010;68:3. 12. Fabbroni G, Aabed S, Mizen K, Starr DG. Transalveolar screws
2. Beebe GW, DeBakey ME. Location of hits and wounds. Battle Ca- and the incidence of dental damage: a prospective study. Int J
sualties.. Springfield, IL: Charles C Thomas; 1952:165–205. Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2004;33:442–446.
3. Hardaway RM. Viet Nam wound analysis. J Trauma. 1978;18:635. 13. West GH, Griggs JA, Chandran R, Precheur HV, Buchanan W,
4. Chan RK, Siller-Jackson A, Verrett AJ, et al. Ten years of war: Caloss R. Treatment outcomes with the use of maxillomandibular
a characterization of craniomaxillofacial injuries incurred during fixation screws in the management of mandible fractures. J Oral
operations Enduring Freedom and Iraqi Freedom. J Trauma Acute Maxillofac Surg. 2014;72:112–120.
Care Surg 2012;73:S453. 14. Jain A, Taneja S, Rai A. What is a better modality of maxilloman-
5. Mabry RL, Holcomb JB, Baker AM, et al. United States Army dibular fixation, bone supported arch bars or erich arch bars? A
Rangers in Somalia: an analysis of combat casualties on an urban systematic review and meta-analysis. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg.
battlefield. J Trauma. 2000;49(3):515–529. In press.
6. Smith E. Papyrus (translated by Breasted). The Edwin Smith surgi- 15. Pathak P, Thomas S, Bhargava D, Beena S. A prospective compar-
cal papyrus. University of Chicago Press; 1930. ative clinical study on modified screw retained arch bar (SRAB)
7. Mukerji R, Mukerji G, McGurk M. Mandibular fractures: histori- and conventional Erich’s arch bar (CEAB). Oral Maxillofac Surg.
cal perspective. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2006;44:222. 2019;23:285–289.
8. Bast B, Yung-Chuan Liu S. Anterior mandible fractures, in Atlas of 16. Johnson AW. Dental occlusion ties: a rapid, safe, and non-inva-
Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Chapter 64, 680–687. sive maxillo-mandibular fixation technology. Laryngoscope In-
9. Satpute AS, Mohiuddin SA, Doiphode AM, Kulkarni SS, Qureshi vestig Otolaryngol. 2017;2:178–183.
AA, Jadhav SB. Comparison of Erich arch bar versus embrasure
wires for intraoperative intermaxillary fixation in mandibular
fractures. Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2018;22:419–428.

SAFE RELIABLE ESSEX

Designed in cooperation with SOF, Essex liquid oxygen
systems are deployment ready and considered the safest
and most reliable for battlefield conditions. Improve the level
of care for the wounded through every stage.

Ask about our comprehensive and extensive hands-on,
BMOS MMOS on-site LOX training. Contact-us@essexind.com

Minnie Ties for Maxillomandibular Fixation | 91