A prospective comparative clinical study on modified screw retained arch bar (SRAB) and conventional Erich's arch bar (CEAB)

Maxillomandibular Fixation: Understanding the Risks and Benefits of Contemporary Techniques in Adults

Numerous techniques achieve maxillomandibular fixation (MMF), each with benefits and risks. While using Erich arch bars to achieve MMF has remained the gold standard through the last century, the technique has multiple limitations, which have spurred innovative approaches, such as intermaxillary fixation (IMF) screws, hybrid arch bars, embrasure wires, and dental occlusion ties. The surge in new MMF technologies over the past decade prompted this analysis to compare these techniques. A PubMed search was conducted to identify all current FDA-approved modern MMF technologies from 2005 through 2023, evaluating their advantages and limitations. Studies with controlled scientific comparisons of techniques were limited, precluding a systematic review. Analysis showed no definitive data exist to endorse one technique as a universal option. As multiple MMF options offer appropriate stability, a surgeon may choose an approach based upon numerous factors: comminution/instability; need for physiotherapy, including guiding elastics; safety; time of application/removal; and patient comfort. This article guides the selection between techniques based on these factors and presents a decision algorithm to assist surgeons in selecting the ideal MMF technique for each patient.

Patient outcomes and complications following various maxillomandibular fixation techniques: A systematic review and meta-analysis

PURPOSE

Currently, there are several methods of achieving maxillomandibular fixation (MMF), each with its unique operative considerations and subsequent patient outcomes and complications. In this study, we reviewed the literature to evaluate and compare all MMF methods.

METHODS

A systematic review of all MMF types was conducted and post-operative outcome data were analyzed and compared among the different types. Conventional Erich arch bars were compared to hybrid arch bars, MMF screws, and eyelet interdental wiring. A random-effects meta-analysis was used to determine the mean differences, and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) with a statistical significance of P < 0.05.

RESULTS

Among the 4234 articles identified, 24 were included, and 17 were meta-analyzed. Time to achieve MMF (-43.38 min; 95% CI, -58.20 to -28.56; P < 0.001), total operative time (-30.33 min; 95% CI, -61.05 to 0.39; P = 0.05), incidence of wire puncture injuries and glove perforations (0.11; 95% CI, 0.04 to 0.30; P < 0.001), and incidence of poor oral hygiene (0.08; 95% CI, 0.02 to 0.28; P < 0.001) were lower for alternative MMF interventions compared to those of the conventional Erich arch bars.

CONCLUSIONS

Alternative MMF methods required shorter operative time to achieve MMF and demonstrated other increased efficiencies of practice such as shorter total operative time and decreased glove perforations, when compared to conventional Erich arch bars. If a patient is a candidate for MMF, the presented alternative MMF techniques should be considered depending on the clinical context and availability of institutional resources.

Comparison of Clinical Efficacy of Screw-retained Arch Bar vs Conventional Erich's Arch Bar in Maxillomandibular Fixation: A Randomized Clinical Trial

AIM

This study aimed to compare the clinical outcomes of a conventional Erich's arch bar vs a modified screw-retained arch bar in maxillomandibular fixation of mandibular fracture.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This parallel-arm randomized control trial included patients from the outpatient clinic with single favorable mandibular fractures that are indicated for closed reduction. They were subjected to maxillomandibular fixation using conventional Erich's arch bars in the control group and modified screw-retained arch bars in the study group. The outcome measures included operating time, glove perforations, postoperative pain, oral hygiene, fixation stability, occlusion, and mucosal coverage.

RESULTS

A total of 20 patients (12 males and 8 females) with a 1:1 allocation ratio were included. There was a significant statistical difference regarding operation time and number of glove perforations in favor of group B as p < 0.001, p = 0.007, respectively. There was a significant statistical difference regarding pain after 1 day (p < 0.001), 1 week (p < 0.001) in favor of group B, and at 4 weeks (p = 0.015), and 6 weeks (p = 0.002) in favor of group A. Regarding oral hygiene at 1 week (p = 0.021) and at 6 weeks (p < 0.001), there was a significant statistical difference in favor of group B. Regarding mucosal coverage at 6 weeks, there was a significant statistical difference in favor of group A (p = 0.005).

CONCLUSION

The modified screw-retained arch bar can be considered an alternative to conventional arch bar as it provided less application time and better operator safety. It also showed better patient satisfaction regarding pain and oral hygiene.

CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE

Maxillomandibular fixation with the conventional technique was modified to screw-retained arch bar which is less time-consuming and provides better patient and operator satisfaction. How to cite this article: Elhadidi MH, Awad S, Elsheikh HAE, et al. Comparison of Clinical Efficacy of Screw-retained Arch Bar vs Conventional Erich's Arch Bar in Maxillomandibular Fixation: A Randomized Clinical Trial. J Contemp Dent Pract 2023;24(12):928-935.

Erich arch bars vs intermaxillary fixation screws for mandibular fracture reduction during ORIF: a randomized clinical trial

OBJECTIVE

This randomized clinical trial aimed to compare the efficacy of Erich arch bars (EAB) and intermaxillary fixation (IMF) screws in reducing mandibular fractures during open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF).

METHODS

A total of 28 patients with mandibular fractures were randomly allocated to either the EAB group or the IMF screws group. The study evaluated various parameters including occlusal stability, complications, duration of application, oral hygiene status, quality of life, and patient characteristics.

RESULTS

The study found no significant differences in occlusal stability between the EAB and IMF screw groups. However, the application and removal times were longer for EAB compared to IMF screws. The EAB group showed a higher presence of biofilm on teeth, indicating poorer oral hygiene status compared to the IMF screws group. In terms of quality of life, patients in the EAB group reported worse results in the "handicap" domain at the 15th postoperative day. No significant differences were observed in other quality-of-life parameters. Patient characteristics were well distributed between the two groups, enhancing the reliability of the results.

CONCLUSION

Both EAB and IMF screws demonstrated comparable occlusal stability for minimally displaced mandibular fractures. However, IMF screws offered advantages such as shorter application and removal times, better oral hygiene maintenance, and potentially improved quality of life in the "handicap" domain. Further studies with larger sample sizes are necessary to validate these findings and explore the stability of IMF methods in cases requiring postoperative malocclusion correction or prolonged IMF.

Orthodontic Approaches in the Management of Mandibular Fractures: A Scoping Review

Non-surgical approaches have been proposed in the management of mandibular fractures, especially in children, but there is a lack of clear guidelines on the clinical indications of conservative approaches. The aim of this scoping review is to provide the available evidence of the role of the orthodontist in the management of mandibular fractures. The PRISMA-ScR guidelines were followed to select eligible articles from the PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science databases according to precise inclusion criteria. The research questions were formulated as follows: "what is the scientific evidence concerning the rule of orthodontists in the management of mandibular fractures" and "the preferential use of the direct bonding technique with orthodontic brackets rather than rigid arch bars"? Seventeen articles were included. Five articles presented the use of removable acrylic splints or functional appliances, six articles concerned the employment of cemented acrylic or rigid splints, and six articles described the management of mandibular fractures in adults and children using orthodontic brackets or mini-screws. Most of these techniques have been employed in children and growing subjects, while fewer data were available regarding conservative treatments in adults. Preliminary evidence suggests that condylar and some minor parasymphyseal fractures in children may be managed with conservative approaches. In adults, minor condylar and stable body mandibular fractures with minimal displacement have been reduced similarly. However, there are no sufficient elements that could suggest the preferential use of orthodontic brackets over rigid arch bars in adults. Further randomized and non-randomized clinical trials with long follow-ups will be needed to better define the clinical indications of the orthodontic approaches in the management of mandibular fractures based on severity, location, and age.

Is manual reduction adequate for intraoperative control of occlusion during fixation of mandibular fractures? A systematic review and meta-analysis

The aim of this systematic review was to find out if manual intraoperative control of occlusion is adequate for the reduction of mandibular fractures in comparison with intermaxillary fixation (IMF). We searched PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Library and Clinical Trials Registry, and the references of included trials. Our primary outcomes of interest were the reduction of fracture anatomically and radiographically, occlusal disturbances, and the incidence of revision procedures due to poor occlusion or reduction. Our secondary outcomes of interest were operating time and infective complications. Of the 257 studies retrieved (manual reduction = 136, IMF = 121), four were included. The studies had an unclear risk of bias. Nevertheless, the overall effect was statistically significant and in favour of manual reduction, with a lower number of adverse events in the manual reduction group (n = 43) than in the IMF group (n = 78), odds ratio 0.42 (95% CI 0.27 to 0.64). An absolute reduction in adverse events was seen in occlusion disturbances (120 fewer/1000), revision procedures (164 fewer/1000), and infective complications (178 fewer/1000). The evidence to support manual reduction over IMF for the intraoperative control of fracture fragments and occlusion was derived from few studies with an unclear risk of bias, and the quality was low. The results were not different when condylar fractures were present. The overall certainty of evidence was moderate. Clinicians should select the appropriate technique based on the injury pattern, and the treating surgeon's experience and available resources.

What is a better modality of maxillomandibular fixation: bone-supported arch bars or Erich arch bars? A systematic review and meta-analysis

Any procedure that aims to manage maxillofacial fracture is incomplete without meticulous maxillomandibular fixation (MMF). For decades, Erich arch bars (EABs) have been used for this purpose, but with the advent of bone-supported arch bars (BSABs), more surgeons now prefer them to conventional EABs. The present study was designed to identify which of the two methods is best. An exhaustive literature search was conducted in June 2020 on various electronic databases to select studies that compared EABs and BSABs. Outcomes such as duration of placement, stability, oral hygiene, and complications such as damage to the roots of teeth and needle-stick injury, were analysed. A total of 716 studies were identified, of which seven were eligible for inclusion. The meta-analysis showed that the use of BSABs is significantly faster with no needle penetration and better oral hygiene. Both arch bars are equally stable, but root damage is an associated complication. The available literature to date shows that BSABs are a better option than EABs. However, further research is recommended, as these studies are associated with various confounding factors.

The use of screw retained hybrid arch bar for maxillomandibular fixation in the treatment of mandibular fractures: A comparative study

Introduction:

The use of screw-retained hybrid arch bars (HABs) is a relatively recent development in the treatment of mandibular fractures. The purpose of this study is to compare the clinical outcome between HAB and the conventional Erich arch bar (EAB) in the closed treatment of mandibular fractures.

Materials and Methods:

This study included 18 patients who were treated for mandibular fractures with maxillomandibular fixation (MMF), patients were randomly assigned into a control group (n = 10) in which EAB was used and study group (n = 8) in which HAB was used. The outcome variables were time required for application and removal, gingival inflammation scores, postoperative complications, and incidence of wire-stick injury or gloves perforation. The groups were compared using unpaired t-test, Mann–Whitney test, Chi-square test, or Fisher test. The differences were considered significant at P < 0.05.

Results:

The mean application time was significantly more in EAB than HAB (61.6 ± 11.4 vs. 41.6 ± 6 min, respectively). The mean time of removal for EAB was significantly less than HAB (11.1 ± 2 vs. 14.2 ± 3 min, respectively). There was nonsignificant difference in gingival inflammation between the groups. No major complications were recorded. Screw loosening and mucosal overgrowth were recorded in 12.5% and 31.2% of the screws, respectively, in HAB group. The incidence of gloves tear in EAB group was 70%.

Discussion:

HAB can be used as an alternative to EAB for MMF in patients with mandibular fracture, it requires less time for application and provides more safety for the surgeons.

Comparison between Erich arch bars and intermaxillary screws in maxillofacial fractures involving the dental occlusion: a meta-analysis

This systematic review aimed to compare the Erich arch bars (EABs) with intermaxillary fixation (IMF) screws in maxillofacial fractures involving dental occlusion on perioperative parameters. Four electronic databases were searched: MedLine (Pubmed), Web of Science, VHL, and Cochrane Library. Inclusion criteria comprised clinical trials comparing the two IMF methods, assessing at least one of the outcomes: occlusal stability, oral hygiene, quality of life, time to apply and remove IMF appliances, and complications. Risk of bias was evaluated through the Cochrane risk of bias tool. Fifteen papers were included in the qualitative analysis and 12 of those in the meta-analysis. Times for EABs application (mean difference (MD) 46.83; 95% confidence interval (CI): 30.63-63.02) and removal (MD 22.89; 95% CI 14.61-31.17) were longer compared with IMF screws. There is higher risk of glove perforation (risk ratio (RR) 3.81; 95% CI 2.41-6.04) and lower risk of iatrogenic injuries (RR 0.21; 95% CI 0.09-0.48) when placing EABs compared with IMF screws. No significant differences in plaque index were found (MD 1.07; 95% CI -0.17 to 2.31). The quality of this evidence ranged from very low to low and was mainly compromised by risk of bias assessment. Further studies are necessary to evaluate transurgical IMF stability and postoperative occlusal quality and quality of life when comparing EABs with IMF screws.