Evaluation of two different methods of arch bar application: a comparative prospective study

Clinical Outcomes of ULTRA EZY Bar vs Erich Arch Bar in Conservative Management of Maxillofacial Fractures: A Randomized Controlled Trial

Objective

Various techniques have been employed from time to time to achieve maxillomandibular fixation, and arch bars provide an effective and versatile means of maxillomandibular fixation, and however, some of the issues occurring with it have been eliminated with the introduction of Ultralock EZY bar. The aim of the present study is to compare the advantages and disadvantages of Ultralock Ezy bar over the Erich arch bar in mid-face fracture or maxillary fracture or mandibular fracture or both requiring conservative treatment.

Materials and Methods

A total of 20 patients reported to the Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery in Sudha Rustagi Dental College and Hospital, Faridabad, with mid-face fracture/maxillary fracture, mandibular fracture or both. The treatment plan required intermaxillary fixation. As a part of treatment plan, group was selected randomly divided into 20 arches in each group that is test arch group and control arch group.Test arch group included arches in which Ultralock EZY bar was done. Control arch group included arches in which Erich arch bar was done. The parameters compared in both the groups were surgical time taken, injuries due to wires, arch bar stability, oral hygiene index, patient acceptance and comfort, pulp vitality, and complication (if any).

Results

The average surgical time taken was less, and oral hygiene status and patient acceptance were better in test group. There was not much statistically significant difference in pulp vitality but number of cases with absence of pulp vitality were more in test group.

Conclusion

This study emphasizes the use of Ultralock Ezy bar as a quick and easy method than Erich arch bar. Oral hygiene maintenance was comparatively better in patients with Ultralock Ezy bar than those with Erich arch bar. For the patients who require long-term IMF, Ultralock Ezy bars can be a viable option.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s12663-022-01821-3.

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.

Comparison of Erich arch bar versus embrasure wires for intraoperative intermaxillary fixation in mandibular fractures

PURPOSE

Intermaxillary fixation (IMF) is a fundamental principle in the management of mandibular fractures but with recent advent of open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF), use of IMF is almost limited intraoperatively. Therefore, we compared the efficacy of Erich arch bar versus embrasure wires for intraoperative IMF in mandibular fractures.

METHOD

This prospective study was comprised of 50 patients with mandibular fractures who required ORIF with intraoperative IMF. Patients were categorized into two groups of 25 patients each: Erich arch bar technique was used for group A and embrasure wire technique for group B. Parameters were time taken for IMF, needle stick injury, occlusal stability, iatrogenic complications, and periodontal status of patients.

STATISTICAL ANALYSIS

Chi-squared test and unpaired t test analyses was run on IBM SPSS 21.0 version (2015) software.

RESULT

Mean time for placing embrasure wire (3.48 min) was significantly less than that for Erich arch bar (48.08 min). Needle stick injury rates to the operator as well as the assistants were significantly less when using the embrasure wire than the Erich arch bar. The Erich arch bar had significantly superior postoperative occlusion stability. Iatrogenic injury was more common when placing the Erich arch bar than the embrasure wire. Postoperative oral hygiene status was good in patients that received the embrasure wire.

CONCLUSION

Embrasure wire technique is a quick, easy, and reliable technique for minimally or moderately displaced fractured mandible and had better clinical outcomes than did patients that underwent the Erich arch bar technique.

Revisiting the Pencil Wire Twister: An Instrument par excellence

The need for twisting wires is an integral aspect of maxillofacial surgery. The act of using the commonly available wire twister exposes the operating surgeon as well as the patient to injury by the sharp edges of wire turning around. Pencil wire twister is advantageous in being safer for both the patient as well as the surgeon. In this paper, the authors discuss the feasibility of wider use of this immensely useful instrument.