Comparative Assessment Between Eyelet Wiring and Direct Interdental Wiring for Achieving Intermaxillary Fixation: A Prospective Randomized Clinical Study

PurposeThe intention of this study was to compare the efficacy of eyelet wiring and direct interdental (Gilmer) wiring for achieving intermaxillary fixation (IMF).Materials and MethodsThis study was a prospective randomized clinical trial. The study sample was derived from the population of patients who underwent IMF at the Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Sharad Pawar Dental College, Wardha, India, between October 2008 and September 2010. The time required for placement and removal (in minutes) was compared between the eyelet wiring and direct interdental wiring techniques. Postoperative stability after achieving IMF was analyzed in the 2 groups. The plaque accumulation in both groups was evaluated using the Turesky-Gilmore-Glickman modification of the Quigley-Hein plaque index. Complications in the form of soft tissue injury, glove puncture, and trauma to the operator's finger were also recorded. Statistical analysis was performed with SPSS statistical software for Windows, version 8.0 (SPSS, Chicago, IL) using the χ2 test and Student t test.ResultsThe mean working time for placement and removal of eyelet wiring (group I) was 18.00 minutes and 9.67 minutes, respectively. For direct interdental wiring (group II), it was 30.50 minutes and 23.12 minutes, respectively. The mean plaque index values were 1.78 and 2.54 for groups I and II, respectively, which signifies a higher plaque deposition in group II. No occlusal disturbance was seen in either group. The incidences of glove perforation, soft tissue trauma, and trauma to the operator's finger were higher in group II.ConclusionsEyelet wiring is preferable to direct interdental wiring as evidenced by fewer complications, and requires a shorter operating time in patients with minimally displaced fractures.