Comparative Evaluation of Efficacy of Conventional Arch Bar, Intermaxillary Fixation Screws, and Modified Arch Bar for Intermaxillary Fixation

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 hybrid arch bar versus conventional arch bar for temporary maxillomandibular fixation during treatment of jaw fractures: a prospective comparative study

Objectives

This study aimed to compare the effectiveness of a hybrid arch bar (hAB) with the conventional Erich arch bar (EAB) for the management of jaw fractures, focusing on their use for temporary fixation in patients undergoing open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF).

Materials and Methods

Patients presenting with maxillary and mandibular fractures at our institution were included in this prospective, comparative study. Placement time and ease of occlusal reproducibility were recorded intraoperatively for Group A (hAB patients) and Group B (EAB patients). The primary outcome was comparison of the postoperative stability of the two arch bars. Postoperative measurements also included mucosal overgrowth, screw loosening or wire retightening, and replacement rates. The data were tabulated and computed with a P<0.05 considered statistically significant.

Results

The study included 41 patients. A statistically significant difference was observed in postoperative stability scores (3) between Group A and Group B (85.0% vs 9.5%, P=0.001). The mean placement time in Group A (23.3 minutes) significantly differed from that in Group B (86.4 minutes) (P<0.001). The ease of intraoperative occlusion was not different between the two groups (P=0.413). Mucosal overgrowth was observed in 75.0% of patients (15 of 20) in Group A.

Conclusion

The hAB was superior to EAB in clinical efficiency, maxillomandibular fixation time reduction, stability, versatility, and safety. Despite temporary mucosal overgrowth, the benefits of hAB outweigh the disadvantages. The choice between hAB and EAB should be based on specific clinical requirements.

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.

Compare the Efficacy of Open Reduction and Internal Fixation of Mandibular Fractures With and Without Use of Intra-Operative Inter-Maxillary Fixation

Mandible fractures are regularly encountered by maxillofacial surgeons and various treatment protocols are available for the management of these fractures. The aim of study compares the efficacy of open reduction and internal fixation of mandibular fractures with and without use of intra-operative inter-maxillary fixation. Twenty patients between age group ranging l8-65 years who reported with single mandibular fracture in Dental college in India, during Oct 2012-March 2015 were the study subjects. These patients were divided into two groups. In one group fracture reduction was done by using inter-maxillary fixation and miniplate fixation was done. In other group fracture reduction was done manually and then fractured fragments were held in position by the assistant and miniplate fixation was done. Post-operatively patients were evaluated for occlusion, bone alignment and soft tissue/hard tissue infection at 1st, 4th, 8th, 12th weeks in both the groups. Statistics done by using Spearman's Rank correlation coefficient and Mann-Whitney U test. It was observed thatthere was no statistically significant difference seen in both the groups in terms of post-operative occlusion, radiological alignment and soft/hard tissue infection. Statistically significant difference was seen when the mean operating time was compared. The Group A showed mean difference of 35.50 min more time than Group B. The results of our study suggested that, use of intra-operative IMF does not show any advantages in terms of post-operative occlusion, bone alignment and soft/hard tissue infection. We have concluded from the study that the increased intra-operative time for the placement of IMF increases the cost of the surgery in regard to equipment and theatre time. There is no benefit in terms of radiographic and clinical outcome. Hence use of intra-operative IMF can be avoided for ORIF of single mandibular fracture.

Is the Use of Intermaxillary Fixation Screws an Alternative to Erich Arch Bars for Maxillomandibular Fixation During Management of Maxillofacial Fractures? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Study Design

Systematic review and meta-analysis.

Objective

Maxillomandibular fixation (MMF) is a step of paramount importance during the management of maxillofacial trauma. Erich arch bars are being used for this purpose for decades but with advances in maxillofacial trauma management, intermaxillary fixation screws came into existence and are being used routinely. The present study was designed to identify if the intermaxillary fixation screws are really an alternative to Erich arch bars for management of maxillofacial trauma.

Methodology

An exhaustive literature search was conducted in May 2020 on various electronic databases and studies comparing Erich arch bars and intermaxillary fixation screws were recruited for the analysis. Random-effects model with Mantel Haenszel statistics was used to analyze oral hygiene and duration of achieving MMF.

Results

A total of 96 studies were identified, out of which 8 studies were included in the meta-analysis. There was no statistically significant difference in oral hygiene status of the patients in both the groups. Intermaxillary fixations screws required statistically significantly less time in achieving MMF. Needle stick injury was prominently seen with the use of Erich arch bar whereas other complications like mucosal coverage, root injury, screw loosening and screw fracture makes the use of intermaxillary fixation screws questionable.

Conclusion

The present meta-analysis suggests that there is not enough evidence to recommend the use of intermaxillary fixation screws as an alternative to Erich arch bars. Further research with large sample size, high quality evidence and better methodology is recommended in this direction.

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.

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

INTRODUCTION

Intermaxillary fixation (IMF) is commonly performed in the management of facial skeleton fractures. Various conventional methods like Erich's arch bar and Ivy eyelet wiring are the most commonly employed methods for achieving IMF, but they have their own disadvantages. Conventional Erich's arch bar (CEAB) has been modified recently by making perforations in the spaces between the winglets and securing the arch bar using 1 mm screws. IMF using intraoral modified screw retained arch bar (SRAB) has been introduced for the treatment of mandibular fractures. The aim of this study was to compare the efficacy, advantages, disadvantages, indications, and potential complications associated with CEAB versus modified SRAB in the management of mandibular fractures.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A randomized prospective study included 20 patients with mandibular fracture who were randomly allotted to two groups. Group A patients received modified SRAB and group B patients received CEAB. The parameters considered were time taken to place the arch bar, perforation in the gloves, patient acceptance, oral hygiene, iatrogenic dental injuries, and needle (wire) stick injuries during IMF.

RESULTS

The mean time taken for arch bar placement was 27.20 min with modified SRAB as compared with 82.50 min with CEAB. Incidence of glove perforations was more in group B patients. Oral hygiene status was good in 90% of the patients from group A whereas it was 100% fair in group B patients.

CONCLUSION

This study has shown that both the techniques achieve satisfactory IMF with post-operative occlusion. IMF with modified SRAB reduces the operating time and the incidence of the needle (wire) prick injuries. But modified SRAB has its own limitations in spite of its ease of application.