Comparing 3D-Printed Virtual Splints vs. Traditional Metal Arch Bars for Repairing Lower Jaw Fractures

INTERVENTION: Intervention1: VIRTUALLY DESIGNED LINGUAL SPLINT: AS AN ADJUNCT ORIF IN ANTERIOR MANDIBLE FRACTURE FOR 4 WEEKS FROM POSTOPERATIVE DAY 0 Control Intervention1: ERICH ARCH BAR: AS AN ADJUNCT ORIF IN ANTERIOR MANDIBLE FRACTURE FOR 4 WEEKS FROM POSTOPERATIVE DAY 0 CONDITION: Health Condition 1: S026‐ Fracture of mandible PRIMARY OUTCOME: To evaluate and compare the incidence of malocclusion ; postoperatively at 1 week and 6 weeks in patients treated with ; virtually designed guide splint and conventional arch bar as an ; adjunct to Open Reduction Internal Fixation in Anterior ; Mandibular FractureTimepoint: postop day 1, post op 1 week, postop 6 week SECONDARY OUTCOME: To evaluate and compare the Bigonial distance, condylar angle, ; and condylar position, as observed on CT/CBCT scans at 1 week ; in patients treated with virtually designed guide splint and ; conventional arch bar as an adjunct to Open Reduction Internal ; Fixation in Anterior Mandibular FractureTimepoint: postop day 1, post op 1 week, postop 6 week To evaluate and compare the pre and postoperative ; intermylohyoid width as observed on CT/CBCT scans at 1 week ; in patients treated with virtually designed guide splint and ; conventional arch bar as an adjunct to Open Reduction Internal ; Fixation in Anterior Mandibular FractureTimepoint: postop day 1, post op 1 week, postop 6 week INCLUSION CRITERIA: 1 Participants in the age group of 18 70 years. 2 Participants with Monofocal, Anterior Mandibular fractures of dentate segment (Symphysis, Parasymphysis). 3 Participants who have sustained fracture in the past two weeks. 4 Participants willing to participate in the study. 5 Confined or nonconfined anterior mandibular fracture.