Effect of two different fixation methods on recovery and quality of life in facial fracture patients

Comparison of Clinical Outcomes and Quality of Life in Facial Fracture Patients Requiring Intermaxillary Fixation: Conventional Arch Bar vs. Hybrid Arch Bar

Status

Recruiting

Phases

Unknown

Study type

Interventional

Source

IRCT

Registry ID

IRCT20240517061819N5

Enrollment

Registered

2025-11-15

Start date

2025-07-23

Completion date

Unknown

Last updated

2025-12-08

For informational purposes only — not medical advice. Sourced from public registries and may not reflect the latest updates. Terms

Conditions

maxillomandibular fracture. Fracture of skull and facial bones

Interventions

Intervention 1: Intervention group: In the intervention group, hybrid arch bars will be used for intermaxillary fixation. This type of arch bar is attached to the jaw with screws and represents a newe

Eligibility

Sex/Gender

All

Age

18 Years to 60 Years

Inclusion criteria

Inclusion criteria: Patients between the ages of 18 and 40 years Patients who are categorized in the 1st and 2nd group according to the ASA (American Society of Anesthesiology ) Patients with isolated mandibular fracture Complete the informed consent

Exclusion criteria

Exclusion criteria: Taking medications that cause gingival growth Patients with upper gastrointestinal problems such as gastric ulcer, reflux, pyloric stenosis

Design outcomes

Primary

Measure	Time frame
Quality of life of patients. Timepoint: First week, second week, fourth and sixth weeks. Method of measurement: 36-item Quality of Life Questionnaire (SF-36).	—

Secondary

Measure	Time frame
Mean time duration for arch bar placement. Timepoint: During Operation. Method of measurement: Stopwatch.	—

Countries

Iran (Islamic Republic of)

Contacts

Public ContactAlireza Parastar

Kerman University of Medical Sciences

a.labafchi@kmu.ac.ir+98 51 3551 1852

Outcome results

None listed

Source: IRCT (via WHO ICTRP) · Data processed: Feb 4, 2026