Abstract

For many years, intermaxillary fixation using arch bar has been operated in treatment of mandibular fracture patients. But it has many complications including injury of operators and assistants cause by wire, inflammation of periodontium. For that reasons alternatives are required; osteosynthesis technique using mini plate, intermaxillary fixation using IMF screws have been available. Treatment by arch bar fixation, however, is still valuable to treat craniomaxillary fracture patients. The purpose of this study is to know effect arch bar on periodontium and influence gingival gel on periodontium applied by arch bar. 40 mandibular fracture patients are monitored. 30 patients were applied by arch bar, 10 patients were not. And the former were classified by 3 categories; Nano vitamin and Mastic gel were applied to 10 patients respectively and any gingival gel was not used to 10 patients. Clinical attachment level, bleeding on probing and periodontal depth of each group were measured and compared before operation and on 2 weeks and 6 weeks after operation. Mann-Whitney U test was used to analyze result which leads to this conclusion. 1. Whether arch bar is applied or not, treatment of mandlbular fracture gave rise to gingivitis, but 6 weeks after operation, gingivitis is restored to the same level as the state before operation. 2. More severe gingivitis appeared when arch bar is applied to mandibular fracture than when it is not. 3. Both gingival gel used in this study can reduce gingivitis which can be caused by arch bar. 4. In this study, Mastic gel is more effective for prevent gingival inflammation cause by arch bar than nano vitamin. In regard to this result, gingivitis is considered to be available because it is reversible and does not induce periodontal disease. Gingival gel is regarded to be helpful for patients applied by arch bar to feel less discomfort.