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

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.

The Assessment of Intermaxillary Fixation and Open Reduction Using Skeletal Anchorage System Compared With Arch Bar in Mandible Fracture Based on CT Image

BACKGROUND

There are many different techniques to achieve intermaxillary fixation (IMF) for open reduction of mandible fractures. The arch bar has long been used as the gold standard of IMF to assist open reduction. However, owing to its long operating time, risk of needle stick injury, and gingival trauma, surgeons looked into different treatment options for IMF, such as the skeletal anchorage system (SAS). Therefore, this study aimed to compare the stability between IMF with arch bar and IMF with SAS based on computed tomography image.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

In this retrospective study, postoperative computed tomography and panoramic radiographs were taken 1 week and 6 months after surgery, respectively. The treatment of mandibular fractures using IMF with arch bar and SAS were compared by evaluating changes in the dental midlines and condyle positions. Thirty patients with mandibular fractures were enrolled into 2 groups-IMF with arch bar and IMF with SAS.

RESULTS

The arch bar showed slightly more deviation in dental midline. In SAS, the condyle moved more medially compared with the arch bar.

CONCLUSIONS

Skeletal anchorage system could be used for IMF with reliable stability in mandible fracture. There were no significant differences in the treatment outcome between the 2 groups.

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.