Are Maxillomandibular Fixation Screws a Better Option Than Erich Arch Bars in Achieving Maxillomandibular Fixation? A Randomized Clinical Study

Trends in Maxillomandibular Fixation Technique at a Single Academic Institution

Study Design

Retrospective chart review.

Objective

Restoration of premorbid occlusion is a key goal in the treatment of mandibular fractures. Placement of the patient in maxillomandibular fixation (MMF) is performed during mandibular fracture repair to help establish occlusion. A number of techniques are available to achieve MMF. We sought to examine trends in MMF technique at our institution.

Methods

A retrospective chart review was conducted to evaluate patients who underwent surgical treatment of mandibular fractures between January 1, 2011 and March 31, 2021. Data including fracture characteristics, mechanism of injury, patient demographics, complication rates, and MMF technique utilized were collected.

Results

One hundred sixty-three patients underwent MMF (132 males). The most common etiology of fracture was assault (34%). There was an increasing preference for rapid MMF techniques over time, as opposed to standard Erich arch bars. No significant difference in obtaining adequate fracture reduction as determined by postoperative imaging or complications were noted between those who underwent MMF with newer rapid techniques vs traditional MMF techniques.

Conclusions

Our institution has demonstrated changing trends in the technique utilized for establishing occlusion intraoperatively, more recently favoring rapid MMF techniques, with similar rates of complications and ability to adequately reduce fractures.

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.

Comparison of Efficacy and Safety of Hybrid Arch Bar with Erich Arch Bar in the Management of Mandibular Fractures: A Randomized Clinical Trial

Study Design

A clinical randomized control trial.

Objective

To compare the efficacy and safety of Hybrid arch bar (HAB) with Erich arch bar (EAB) in fracture management of the mandible.

Methods

In this randomized clinical trial, 44 patients were divided into 2 groups:- Group 1, N = 23 (EAB group) and Group 2, N = 21 (HAB group). The primary outcome was time taken for the application of arch bar, while the inner and outer glove puncture, operator prick, oral hygiene, arch bar stability, complications of HAB, and cost comparison were secondary outcomes.

Results

The time taken for the application of arch bar in group 2 was significantly shorter than group 1 (55.66 ± 17.869 min vs 82.04 ± 12.197 min) and the frequency of outer glove puncture was also significantly lesser for group 2 (0 punctures vs 9 punctures). Better oral hygiene was found in group 2. EAB was cost-effective than HAB (Rs 700 ± 239.79 vs Rs 1742.50 ± 257.14). The stability of the arch bar was comparable in both groups. Group 2 had associated complications of root injury in 2 out of 252 screws placed and the screw head got covered by soft tissue in 137 out of 252 screws placed.

Conclusions

Thus, HAB was better than EAB with a shorter time of application, less risk of prick injury, and improved oral hygiene.Clinical trial registry name- clinical trials registry- India, URL-http://ctri.nic.in, registration number- CTRI/2020/06/025966.

Risk Factors for Acute Postoperative Complications Following Operative Management of Le Fort Fractures-A NSQIP Study

INTRODUCTION

Le Fort fractures comprise a pattern of complex midfacial fractures that arise secondarily to craniofacial trauma. Although management of these fractures has been detailed within the literature, there is a paucity of research examining postoperative outcomes after surgical repair. The primary aim of this study is to assess patient outcomes after operative management of Le Fort fractures, and examine factors influencing the risk for developing postoperative complications, through utilization of the ACS-NSQIP database.

METHODS

The American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (ACS-NSQIP) database was queried for cases recorded between 2012 and 2019 with International Classification of Disease (ICD)-9 and ICD-10 codes corresponding to Le Fort fractures. Patient demographics, clinical variables, and postoperative variables were recorded. Logistic regression analysis was conducted to identify independent risk factors for postoperative complications.

RESULTS

Identification of cases with appropriate ICD codes, and exclusion of those with missing data, yielded 562 patients for analysis. There were no cases of minor complications and 14 cases of severe complications (3 cases of wound dehiscence, 3 cases of transfusion requirement, 1 case of failure to wean from the ventilator for more than 48 h, 1 pulmonary embolism, and 8 cases of reoperation), corresponding to an overall complication rate of 2.49%. Logistic regression analysis revealed steroid use as an independent predictor of severe postoperative complications (OR =13.73, 95% CI: 1.08-128.02, P =0.02).

CONCLUSION

The present study is the first to conduct a risk factor analysis of patients with Le Fort fractures using the ACS-NSQIP national database. The overall postoperative complication rate was 2.49%, with 14 cases of complications recorded in 8 years. Although this may suggest that surgical management of Le Fort fractures is generally well-tolerated, it should be noted that this problem is frequently associated with other severe injuries of the head and neck that may influence patient prognosis. Given this, further analysis would benefit from a larger patient cohort and longer postoperative data as the ACS-NSQIP database only records outcomes within 30 days.

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.

Treatment of pediatric bilateral condylar fractures: A comprehensive analysis

Pediatric bilateral condylar fractures (PBCF) is a rare clinical pathology, where the management is carried out with both conservative and surgical approaches. The purpose of this study was to analyze and compare these two treatment approaches and their associated long term complications in PBCF. An extensive literature review- through the search of online databases- was conducted to survey, collect, analyze and compare the reported outcomes of different treatment modalities for PBCF. The number of studies presenting PBCF case reports was 16, while the number of such retrospective studies included here was 19. Analyses of these studies revealed that the conservative treatment is preferred in PBCF patients younger than 12 years of age. Moreover, a composite approach where the open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) is carried out for one side while the intermaxillary fixation (IMF) for the contralateral side is frequently reported for the management of PBCF cases; this approach appears effective in improving daily functioning of temporomandibular joint and reducing long term complications. Performing ORIF for one side while IMF for the contralateral side seems the most common treatment approach in PBCF. This study may help in rapid decision making for treatment selection of PBCF patients while minimizing the risk for late complications.

European multicenter prospective analysis of the use of maxillomandibular fixation for mandibular fractures treated with open reduction and internal fixation

INTRODUCTION

The goal of mandibular fracture treatment is to restore static and dynamic occlusal functions. Open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) of these fractures can be associated with an intraoperative and/or postoperative maxillo-mandibular fixation (MMF). The aim of this study was to analyse the use of perioperative MMF and its effects on occlusal outcomes in the management of mandibular fractures.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

This multicentric prospective study included adult patients with mandibular fractures treated with ORIF. The following data were collected: age, gender, pre-trauma dental status (dentate, partially dentate), cause of injury, fracture site, associated facial fractures, surgical approach, type of ORIF (rigid, non-rigid or mixed), thickness and number of plates, modality of intraoperative MMF (arch bars, self-tapping and self-drilling screws [STSDSs], manual, other) and duration of postoperative MMF. The primary outcome was malocclusion at 6 weeks and 3 months. Statistical analyses were performed with Fisher's exact test or chi-square test, as appropriate.

RESULTS

Between 1 May 2021 and 30 April 2022, 336 patients, 264 males and 72 females (median age, 28 years) with mandibular fractures (194 single, 124 double and 18 triple fractures) were hospitalized. Intraoperative MMF was performed in all patients. Osteosynthesis was rigid in 75% of single fractures, and rigid or mixed in 85% and 100% of double and triple fractures, respectively. Excluding patients who underwent manual reduction, postoperative MMF (median duration, 3 weeks) was performed in 140 (64%) patients, without differences by type or number of fractures (p > 0.05). No significant difference was found in the incidence of malocclusion in patients with postoperative MMF (5%, 95% confidence interval [CI], 2-10%) compared to those without (4%; 95% IC, 1-11%) (p > 0.05).

CONCLUSION

Postoperative MMF was performed in more than half of the patients despite adequate fracture osteosynthesis, with wide variability amongst centers. No evidence of a reduction in the incidence of postoperative malocclusion in patients treated with postoperative MMF was found.

Postoperative Computed Tomography for Facial Fractures

In order for a radiologist to create reports that are meaningful to facial reconstructive surgeons, an understanding of the principles that guide surgical management and the hardware employed is imperative. This article is intended to promote efficient and salient reporting by illustrating surgical approaches and rationale. Hardware selection can be inferred and a defined set of potential complications anticipated when assessing the adequacy of surgical reconstruction on postoperative computed tomography for midface, internal orbital, and mandible fractures.

Prevention of oral and maxillofacial trauma secondary to orofacial dyskinesias associated with anti-N-methyl-D-aspartate receptor encephalitis: a case series

Background

Anti-N-methyl-d-aspartate receptor encephalitis (anti-NMDARE) is a multi-stage autoimmune-mediated disease associated with a multitude of neuropsychiatric and dysautonomic features. Orofacial dyskinesias are frequently associated with this condition and manifest as abnormal movements of the orofacial musculature. These involuntary movements may result in significant trauma to the oral and maxillofacial complex including the avulsion of the dentition and orofacial lacerations.

Case presentation

We describe the course of two female patients with anti-NMDARE in whom significant involuntary self-inflicted maxillofacial trauma was suffered despite the use of complex parenteral sedation regimens. The application of traditional maxillomandibular wiring techniques and pharmacologic strategies, including botulinum toxin, to immobilize the mandible were initially unsuccessful. These difficulties led to the fabrication and wire-based fixation of a patient-specific acrylic oral appliance that maintained the mandible in a depressed position and mitigated all lateral and protrusive movements.

Discussion and conclusions

These cases illustrate the first known successful use of an appliance-based therapy for managing orofacial dyskinesias in the anti-NMDARE patient population through an adaptation of traditional maxillomandibular fixation techniques. This approach eliminated further orofacial trauma and afforded physicians with safer means to manage and assess patients afflicted with this condition during their protracted intensive care unit admissions.

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.

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.

A Comparative Randomized Prospective Clinical Study on Modified Erich Arch Bar with Conventional Erich Arch Bar for Maxillomandibular Fixation

Introduction

Erich arch bar used for maxillomandibular fixation (MMF) since decades has several disadvantages such as risks of injury, additional operating room time, and gingival trauma. To overcome these downsides, modified Erich arch bar was introduced; however, there is not much available literature, indicating the efficacy of modified Erich arch bar over that of conventional arch bar wire. Therefore, the present study focuses on comparing efficiency of modified arch bar with conventional arch bar.

Materials and Methods

This comparative randomized study was conducted on 32 patients that required MMF and were divided into Group A patients who received intermaxillary fixation (IMF) with modified Erich arch bars and Group B patients with conventional Erich arch bars. The parameters recorded were average surgical time required, wire prick injuries, IMF stability, occlusal stability, screw loosening, oral hygiene status, and vitality response of the teeth. The variables were statistically analyzed using Student's t-test and Wilcoxon signed-rank test.

Results

The wire prick injury, intraoperative time noted in Group A was significantly reduced in comparison to Group B (P < 0.0001). Debris indices were significantly good in Group A in comparison to Group B (P < 0.0001). Nonvitality response of tooth was significantly more in Group B than in Group A patients (P < 0.05).

Discussion

The efficiency of modified Erich arch bar group was superior to the conventional arch bar with very limited restrictions.

A randomized prospective comparison of maxillomandibular fixation (MMF) techniques: "SMARTLock" hybrid MMF versus MMF screws

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to assess the efficacy of the "SMARTLock" hybrid system and determine whether it results in fewer intraoperative and postoperative complications compared with placement of intermaxillary fixation (IMF) screws in trauma patients.

STUDY DESIGN

This prospective study, which was approved by the institutional review board, compared the results of MMF in mandibular fractures by using the Stryker "SMARTLock" hybrid system versus traditional IMF screws. Patients were recruited and assigned randomly to either group. The 2 groups were compared for placement time, intraoperative complications, loosening of hardware, postoperative complications, and time to device removal.

RESULTS

We enrolled 32 patients in the study, with 13 patients randomized to the group receiving hybrid MMF (HMMF) with the SMARTLock system and 19 to the group of patients receiving MMF with traditional IMF screws. The mean application time for HMMF was 25.92 minutes compared with 18.28 minutes for IMF screws. After removal, the HMMF was associated with gingival overgrowth and gingival edema.

CONCLUSIONS

This is the first study to compare HMMF with MMF with the use of IMF screws. Hybrid arch bars do require more manipulation for ideal placement compared with individually placed bone screws to achieve ideal MMF. Compared with IMF screws, the hybrid device was associated with gingival edema and overgrowth, but there was decreased incidence of loosening in the postoperative period.

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.

The risk of tooth root injuries using cortical screws for intermaxillary fixation and osteosynthesis plates - A retrospective analysis

Intermaxillary fixation (IMF) and osteosynthesis plates (OP) are widely used for the non-surgical and surgical treatment of mandible and condyle fractures. The aim of this retrospective study was to analyze the frequency of tooth root injuries by IMF and OP screws. Electronic patient reports (2004-2013) were screened for patients treated with either IMF screws and/or OP in the Department of Oral- and Maxillofacial Surgery, University Medical Center Mainz, Germany. The frequency and the position of endangered and injured teeth were analyzed by orthopantomogram (OPTG) and cone beam computer tomography (CBCT). Next, possible predictive factors for tooth root injuries, namely interdental- and crestal distance, screw length and distance between tooth root and screw were evaluated. Further, the accuracy of OPTG vs. CBCT concerning the diagnosis of tooth root injuries was analyzed. Three-hundred sixty-six patients were included and 3388 teeth were defined as endangered by IMF- and OP screws. Overall, 16 injured teeth (0.5%) in 13 patients (3.55%) were detected. Nine injuries (56.3%) were caused by IMF- and seven injuries (43.8%) by OP screws. Three teeth were non-vital, one tooth had to be extracted. No correlation between the predictive factors crestal distance, screw length and tooth root injuries was found. If tooth injury occurred, a significant correlation between the interdental distance and the distance between tooth root and screw was found (κ = 0.48; p < 0,0001). Comparison between OPTG vs. CBCT demonstrated that many of the injuries that were seen in the OPTG (n = 230) could not be verified in the CBCT scans (n = 16) (κ = 0.12). To conclude, screws for IMF and OP can be considered as a safe procedure concerning the risk of tooth root injuries.

A Clinical Comparison and Economic Evaluation of Erich Arch Bars, 4-Point Fixation, and Bone-Supported Arch Bars for Maxillomandibular Fixation

Importance

Erich arch bars, 4-point fixation, and bone-supported arch bars are currently used in maxillomandibular fixation, although to what extent they differ in terms of overall charges and clinical outcomes has yet to be reported.

Objective

To determine the association of Erich arch bars, 4-point fixation, and bone-supported arch bars in maxillomandibular fixation with hospital charges and clinical outcomes.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This historical cohort included 93 patients with mandible fracture who underwent maxillomandibular fixation from January 1, 2005, to June 30, 2015, at a tertiary care center. Statistical analysis was conducted from October 4, 2015, to September 8, 2017.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Charge analysis from an institutional perspective, operative time, necessity for a secondary procedure, and postoperative complications.

Results

Of the 93 patients in the study (18 women and 75 men; median age, 28.0 years [interquartile range, 23.0-40.0 years]), 27 (29%) received Erich arch bars, 51 (55%) received 4-point fixation, and 15 (16%) received bone-supported arch bars. The mean operative time for Erich arch bars (98.7 minutes; 95% CI, 89.2-108.2 minutes) was significantly longer than for 4-point fixation (48.8 minutes; 95% CI, 41.8-55.7 minutes) and bone-supported arch bars (55.9 minutes; 95% CI, 43.1-68.6 minutes). A total of 17 patients who received Erich arch bars (63%), 37 patients who received 4-point fixation (72%), and 1 patient who received bone-supported arch bars (7%) needed to return to the operating room for hardware removal. Patients who received Erich arch bars and those who received 4-point fixation had significantly higher odds of requiring a secondary procedure than did patients who received bone-supported arch bars (Erich arch bars: odds ratio, 27.1; 95% CI, 2.7-274.6; and 4-point fixation: odds ratio, 42.8; 95% CI, 4.4-420.7). Mean total operative charges for application of the hardware alone were significantly less for 4-point fixation ($5290; 95% CI, $4846-$5733) and bone-supported arch bars ($6751; 95% CI, $5936-$7566) than for Erich arch bars ($7919; 95% CI, $7311-$8527). When secondary procedure charges were included, the mean total charge for Erich arch bars ($9585; 95% CI, $8927-$10 243) remained significantly more expensive than the mean total for 4-point fixation ($7204; 95% CI, $6724-$7684) and bone-supported arch bars ($6924; 95% CI, $6042-$7807). No clinically meaningful difference in complications between groups was found (Erich arch bars, 3 [11%]; 4-point fixation, 5 [10%]; and bone-supported arch bars, 2 [13%]).

Conclusions and Relevance

Bone-supported arch bars have comparable complication outcomes, operative time for placement, and overall charges when compared with Erich arch bars and 4-point fixation, and have a lower likelihood of requiring removal in an operative setting.

Are Bondable Buttons a Better Option than Intermaxillary Fixation Screws for Achieving Maxillomandibular Fixation? A Prospective Randomized Clinical Study

Aim

The aim of this study was to identify a better option in achieving maxillomandibular fixation (MMF) comparing bondable buttons and Maxillomandibular Fixation screws in achieving Maxillomandibular Fixation.

Patients and Methods

In this randomized clinical trial, study sample was derived from the population of patients who reported with minimally displaced mandibular fractures and who required Maxillomandibular Fixation. The patients were divided into two groups. In Group I (n = 20), Maxillomandibular Fixation was done with Maxillomandibular Fixation screws; on the other hand, in Group II (n = 20), bondable buttons were used. In both the groups the patients were analyzed for the time duration required in minutes for securing and removal of Maxillomandibular Fixation, plaque accumulation and postoperative stability. Plaque accumulation was evaluated using TURESKY-GILMORE-GLICKMAN modification of the Quigley-Hein plaque index. The complications encountered during and after the surgery were also analyzed.

Results

The plaque accumulation and time required for placement and removal in group I were more as compared to group II. In Group I, there were more complications as compared to Group II such as tooth root damage, screw loosening, screw breakage and infection.

Conclusion

Bondable buttons are a better choice for achieving Maxillomandibular Fixation in comparison with Maxillomandibular Fixation screws for the treatment of minimally displaced mandibular fractures. Further studies with a bigger sample size must be carried out.

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

Aim

Comparative evaluation of efficacy of conventional arch bar, intermaxillary fixation screws, and modified arch bar with respect to plaque accumulation, time required for procedure, postoperative stability after achieving the intermaxillary fixation, mucosal growth, and complication encountered for intermaxillary fixation.

Materials and methods

This study is a randomized clinical trial in which participants were divided into three groups of 10 each, and designated as Group A, Group B, and Group C. In Group A, intermaxillary fixation was achieved by the conventional method using Erich arch bar, fastened with 26-gauge stainless-steel wires. In Group B, intermaxillary fixation was achieved by the use of 2 mm × 8 mm 4-6 stainless-steel intermaxillary fixation screws. In Group C, intermaxillary fixation was achieved by modified screw arch bar. A conventional arch bar was modified by making perforations in the spaces between the winglets along the entire extension of the bar which was then adapted to the vestibular surface of the maxilla and mandible, close to the cervical portion of the teeth, and perforations were made in the inter-radicular spaces with a 1.1-mm bur, and after this, 1.5-mm screws were placed to fix the bar.

Results

In the present study, a total of 30 patients were analyzed. The average working time for Group A, Group B, and Group C were 110, 16, and 29 min respectively. Oral hygiene scores through modified Turskey Gilmore plaque index which was taken at immediate postoperative, 15, 30, and at 45 days. Maximum hygiene was maintained in intermaxillary fixation screw group followed by modified arch bar group and conventional arch bar group. Maximum stability was seen in the conventional arch bar group followed by modified arch bar group and intermaxillary fixation screw group. With respect to mucosal coverage, maximum mucosal growth was seen in intermaxillary fixation screws group. When complications were taken into consideration, maximum complications were reported in Group A followed by Group B and Group C.

Conclusion

This study emphasizes that the use of modified arch bar is quick and easy method than conventional arch bar with least chances of glove puncture and needle stick injury to the operator. Oral hygiene maintenance is comparatively better in patients with modified arch bar than with conventional arch bars. Modified arch bar was significantly stable when compared with IMF screws, and therefore, for the patients who require long-term intermaxillary fixation, modified arch bars can be a viable option.

The Hybrid Arch Bar Is a Cost-Beneficial Alternative in the Open Treatment of Mandibular Fractures

Obtaining maxillomandibular fixation (MMF) to achieve fracture reduction and functional occlusion is essential in the management of maxillofacial trauma. The aims of this retrospective review were to compare the total time spent in the operating room (OR) when using the Erich arch bar (EAB) versus the bone anchored hybrid arch bar (HAB) as well as performing a cost-benefit analysis (CBA). The study sample comprised patients older than 18 years who underwent open reduction internal fixation of mandible fractures at two separate institutions over a 5-year period. The primary outcome variable was total surgical time in minutes, defined as the time from incision to the completion of closure. Average operative time was significantly longer for the EAB than for the HAB (186.74 ± 70.73 vs. 135.98 ± 2.69 minutes, p  < 0.001). A significant amount of time was saved by using the HAB for unilateral (37.17 ± 13.19 minutes; p  = 0.007) and bilateral fractures (55.83 ± 18.89 minutes; p  = 0.005). In-depth CBA showed that, for average OR fees of $60 per minute, the HAB produced savings of at least 4.01 and 11.63% of the total cost of surgery for unilateral and bilateral fractures. These results support the hypothesis that the HAB is a time-saving maneuver in the open treatment of mandible fractures. The HAB saves more time in bilateral fracture cases despite the longer overall operative times. This study shows the differential time-saving effect of the HAB regardless of fracture laterality as well as its cost minimization benefit compared with the EAB.

FAMI Screws for Mandibulo-Maxillary fixation in mandibular fracture treatment - Clinico-radiological evaluation

Mandibulo-maxillary fixation (MMF) is indispensable for mandibular fracture treatment. Various means for MMF have been proposed, of which arch bars are widely considered to be the mainstay. However, disadvantages to this method have initiated a quest for an alternative, leading to the introduction of MMF screws. MMF screws have frequently been criticized for poor stability of fracture sites, root damage, hardware failure, and nerve damage. We retrospectively evaluate the FAMI (Fixation and Adaptation in Mandibular Injuries) screw in mandibular fracture treatment by scanning for clinically and radiologically visible complications. In total, 534 FAMI screws were used in the successful treatment of 96 males and 34 females. Condylar fractures were most commonly encountered, representing 120 of 241 fracture sites. 15 general fracture-related complications occurred, with the most common being nerve function impairment (3.8%) and postoperative malocclusion (4.6%). In nine cases (7%), clinically visible FAMI-screw-related complications occurred, with the most prevalent being screw loosening (2.3%) and mucosal signs of inflammation (3.1%). Duration of FAMI screws was associated with the occurrence of clinically visible complications (p = 0.042). Radiologically, clinically invisible dental hard tissue damage was noted in 21 individuals (16%). Therefore, FAMI screws seem to be a reliable and safe method for mandibulo-maxillary fixation.

Intermaxillary Fixation with a Single Wire

Intermaxillary fixation (IMF) is required before plating to achieve premorbid relationship of mandibular and maxillary teeth. We recommended the use of single wire for achieving IMF using 24 gauze stainless steel wire, which is an easy, fast, economical and minimally invasive technique.

Evaluation of efficacy of intermaxillary fixation screws versus modified arch bar for intermaxillary fixation

Aim:

This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy of intermaxillary fixation (IMF) screws and modified arch bar.

Materials and Methods:

This study is a randomized clinical trial in which all participants were divided into two groups of ten in each group and designated as Group A and Group B. In Group A, IMF was achieved by the use of four to six 2×8mm stainless steel IMF screws. In Group B, IMF was achieved by modified screw arch bar.

Results:

In the present study, a total of twenty patients were analyzed. The average working time for Group A and Group B was 16 min and 29 min, respectively. Oral hygiene scores through modified Turesky Gilmore plaque index were calculated at immediate postoperative period and after 15 days, 30 days, and 45 days. Maximum hygiene was maintained in IMF screw group than modified arch bar group, but maximum stability was observed in the modified arch bar group than IMF screw group.

Conclusion:

This study emphasizes the use of IMF screws as a quick and easy method than modified arch bar. Oral hygiene maintenance was comparatively better in patients with IMF screws than those with modified arch bar. Modified arch bar was significantly stable when compared with IMF screws; therefore, for patients who require long-term IMF, modified arch bars can be a viable option, but the perforation in the original arch bar may lead to the weakening of the arch bar, and therefore the prefabricated modified arch bar would be a better option.

Erich arch bar versus hanger plate technique for intermaxillary fixation in fracture mandible: A prospective comparative study

Introduction:

Various methods have been described for intermaxillary fixation (IMF) for treatment of faciomaxillary injuries. Many studies have been described to evaluate the efficacy of different methods. Hanger plate method has not been commonly used. The aim of the present study was to compare the advantages and disadvantages of this method over Erich arch bar in mandibular fracture.

Materials and Methods:

Sixty patients of only mandibular fracture presenting to trauma center requiring open reduction and internal fixation under general anesthesia were randomly allocated to Group A and Group B comprising thirty patients in each. Group A included patients who received IMF with Erich arch bar. Group B included patients who received IMF with hanger plate method. The two groups were compared for time duration of intermaxillary procedure, total duration of surgery, oral hygiene score, postoperative occlusion, and complications.

Results:

The average time of intermaxillary procedure, total duration of surgery, and wire prick injuries were more in Group A. Oral hygiene score was significantly better in Group B. Postoperative occlusion was comparable between the two groups. There was screw loosening in four patients in Group B, but none had tooth root injury. The cost of material for IMF was more in Group B.

Conclusion:

IMF with hanger plate method is more safe and efficacious compared to Erich arch bar in the treatment of mandibular fractures.

The use of Synthes MatrixWAVE bone anchored arch bars for closed treatment of multiple concurrent mandibular fractures

Background

Maxillomandibular fixation (MMF) is an important tool in the treatment of facial fractures and bone-anchored arch bar systems have emerged as treatment options. This study illustrates our experience with the Synthes MatrixWAVE MMF system and the novel application in closed treatment of patients with multiple concurrent mandibular fractures.

Methods

We enrolled eight patients with concurrent mandibular fractures and treated them with the MatrixWAVE MMF system. The malleable arch bars were fitted and then secured using 6-8 mm screws. The arch bar was and either stretched or compressed to ensure optimal positioning. 24-gauge interdental fixation wiring was placed using the fish loop technique on either side of the fracture to achieve stabilization of the mandible fractures.

Results

All eight patients were retained in MMF until stable occlusion was achieved with clinical evidence of healing, approximately 4-6 weeks. Post-operative Panorex scans did not reveal any evidence of damage to tooth roots. None of the screws became overly embedded in the mucosa secondary to overgrowth; the arch bars were successfully removed in an outpatient setting without local anesthesia.

Conclusions

The Synthes MatrixWAVE MMF system has unique features such as prominent screw anchor heads and horizontal malleability unique from other bone anchored arch bars. These features allow for completely closed treatment of patients with multiple concurrent mandible fractures.

A Technique for Reduction of Edentulous Fractures Using Dentures and SMARTLock Hybrid Fixation System

Establishing anatomic reduction of an edentulous mandible fracture is a frequently acknowledged challenge in craniomaxillofacial trauma surgery. In this study, we report a novel method for the reduction of the edentulous mandible fracture, via fabrication of modified Gunning splints using existing dentures and SMARTLock hybrid arch bars. This technique dramatically simplifies the application of an arch bar to dentures, obviates the need for the fabrication of impressions and custom splints, and eliminates the lag time associated with the creation of splints. Furthermore, this method may be used with or without adjunctive rigid internal fixation. The technique described herein of creating Gunning splints with SMARTLock hybrid arch bars provides surgeons with a simple, rapid, single-stage solution for reduction of mandibular fractures in the edentulous patient.

Evidence-Based Medicine in Facial Trauma

This article provides the reader with a comprehensive review of high-level evidence-based medicine in facial trauma and highlights areas devoid of high-level evidence. The article is organized in the order one might approach a clinical problem: starting with the workup, followed by treatment considerations, operative decisions, and postoperative treatments. Individual injuries are discussed within each section, with an overview of the available high-level clinical evidence. This article not only provides a quick reference for the facial traumatologist, but also allows the reader to identify areas that lack high-level evidence, perhaps motivating future endeavors.

Dental occlusion ties: A rapid, safe, and non-invasive maxillo-mandibular fixation technology

Objectives

For decades, Erich arch bars have been a standard in establishing maxillo‐mandibular fixation (MMF). While reliable, the approach risks sharps injury, consumes operating room time, and inflicts gingival trauma. Newer technologies including screw‐based techniques and “hybrid” techniques have improved MMF by reducing sharps injuries and operating room time, but risk injury to tooth roots, nerves, and gingiva. This study aims to establish the application, strengths, and limitations of dental occlusion ties as a novel alternative in maxillo‐mandibular fixation.

Study Design

Prospective, non‐blinded, human feasibility clinical trial.

Materials and Methods

An iterative prototyping process was used to invent dental occlusion ties (brand name: Minne Ties). Development included 3D printing, cadaver prototype testing, human apical embrasure measurement, and ultimately non‐significant risk human clinical trial testing. In the IRB‐approved feasibility clinical trial, the devices were applied to mandible and maxilla fracture candidates with fractures amenable to intra‐operative MMF with open reduction with internal fixation. The ties were removed prior to extubation. Pre‐teens, comminuted fracture patients, and patients requiring post‐operative MMF were excluded.

Results

Manufactured, sterile prototypes secured MMF successfully in management of unilateral and bilateral mandible and maxilla fractures. All patients reported correction of pre‐operative malocclusion. Application times were typically 12–15 minutes for a single surgeon to achieve MMF. Patients incurred negligible gingival trauma from the technology as the ties require no tissue penetration for application.

Conclusions

Dental occlusion ties offer a non‐invasive solution featuring operating room efficiency, minimized sharps risk, and less bony and soft tissue trauma than current commercialized solutions.

Level of Evidence

Therapeutic, IV

Maxillomandibular Fixation by Plastic Surgeons: Cost Analysis and Utilization of Resources

PURPOSE

Maxillomandibular fixation (MMF) can be performed using various techniques. Two common approaches used are arch bars and bone screws. Arch bars are the gold standard and inexpensive, but often require increased procedure time. Bone screws with wire fixation is a popular alternative, but more expensive than arch bars. The differences in costs of care, complications, and operative times between these 2 techniques are analyzed.

METHODS

A chart review was conducted on patients treated over the last 12 years at our institution. Forty-four patients with CPT code 21453 (closed reduction of mandible fracture with interdental fixation) with an isolated mandible fracture were used in our data collection. The operating room (OR) costs, procedure duration, and complications for these patients were analyzed.

RESULTS

Operative times were significantly shorter for patients treated with bone screws (P < 0.002). The costs for one trip to the OR for either method of fixation did not show any significant differences (P < 0.840). More patients with arch bar fixation (62%) required a second trip to the OR for removal in comparison to those with screw fixation (31%) (P < 0.068). This additional trip to the OR added significant cost. There were no differences in patient complications between these 2 fixation techniques.

CONCLUSIONS

The MMF with bone screws represents an attractive alternative to fixation with arch bars in appropriate scenarios. Screw fixation offers reduced costs, fewer trips to the OR, and decreased operative duration without a difference in complications. Cost savings were noted most significantly in a decreased need for secondary procedures in patients who were treated with MMF screws. Screw fixation offers potential for reducing the costs of care in treating patients with minimally displaced or favorable mandible fractures.

Multidetector CT of Mandibular Fractures, Reductions, and Complications: A Clinically Relevant Primer for the Radiologist

After the nasal bones, the mandible is the second most common site of facial fractures, and mandibular fractures frequently require open reduction. In the trauma injury setting, multidetector computed tomography (CT) has become the cornerstone imaging modality for determining the most appropriate treatment management, fixation method, and surgical approach. Multidetector CT is also used to assess the adequacy of the reduction and evaluate potential complications in the postoperative period. For successful restoration of the mandible's form and function, as well as management of posttraumatic and postoperative complications, reconstructive surgeons are required to have a detailed understanding of mandibular biomechanics, occlusion, and anatomy. To provide added value in the diagnosis, treatment planning, and follow-up of mandibular fractures, radiologists should be aware of these concepts. Knowledge of the techniques commonly used to achieve occlusal and anatomic reduction and of the rationale behind the range of available treatment options for different injury patterns-from isolated and nondisplaced fractures to multisite and comminuted fractures-also is essential. This article focuses on the use of multidetector CT for pre- and postoperative evaluation of mandibular fractures and outlines fundamental concepts of diagnosis and management-beginning with an explanation of common fracture patterns and their biomechanical underpinnings, and followed by a review of the common postoperative appearances of these fractures after semirigid and rigid fixation procedures. Specific considerations regarding fractures in different regions of the tooth-bearing and non-tooth-bearing mandible and the unique issues pertaining to the edentulous atrophic mandible are reviewed, and key features that distinguish major from minor complications are described. (©)RSNA, 2016.

A comparative study of intermaxillary fixation screws and noncompression miniplates in the treatment of mandibular fractures: a prospective clinical study

BACKGROUND

The main goal of treatment of mandibular fractures is to restore normal dental occlusion and promote appropriate bone healing and a normal mouth opening. Recently, there has been a resurgent interest in the use of screws for intermaxillary fixation of mandibular fractures. This study was therefore designed to determine how the clinical outcomes of the use of screws for intermaxillary fixation compare with the use of miniplates in the treatment of mandibular fractures in Nigeria.

OBJECTIVES

The objectives of this study are as follows: 1. To compare the clinical outcomes of the use of 2.0 mm × 9.0 mm screws for intermaxillary fixation with 2.0 mm noncompression miniplates in the treatment of simple unilateral mandibular fractures in Lagos, Nigeria 2. To determine the clinical outcomes in the use of 2.0 mm × 9.0 mm screws for intermaxillary fixation (IMF) and 2.0 mm noncompression miniplates in the treatment of simple unilateral mandibular fractures 3. To compare the complications associated with the use of 2.0 mm × 9.0 mm screws for IMF and 2.0 mm noncompression miniplates in the treatment of mandibular fractures METHODOLOGY: This randomized controlled clinical study was carried out at the Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery of the study institution. Subjects with simple unilateral mandibular fractures who met the inclusion criteria were randomly allocated into the study (intermaxillary fixation screw) and control (miniplate) groups through balloting. Factors assessed and compared during and after the procedures included intraoperative pain, postoperative nerve impairment, postoperative occlusion, limitation of mouth opening, incidence of hardware failure, incidence of infection and non-union. Data was analysed using the Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) version 20.

RESULTS

A total of 56 subjects participated in the study, with 28 subjects in each group. Majority (91%) of the subjects were male. Road traffic crash was the highest aetiological factor while sport was the least (3.6%). A higher proportion (25.0%) of subjects in the miniplate group had major complications compared with 14.3% in the IMF screw group. There was no statistically significant association between site of mandibular fracture, time elapsed before treatment and complications (p < 0.05). All cases of mandibular fractures healed successfully at 6 weeks.

CONCLUSION

The use of screws for IMF is as effective as 2.0 mm noncompression miniplates in the treatment of simple unilateral mandibular fractures.

Self-tapping Intermaxillary Fixation Screw: An Alternative to Arch Bar

INTRODUCTION

The use of intermaxillary fixation (IMF) in the treatment of faciomaxillary fractures is the key factor for reduction and immobilization. Various techniques of IMF have been described in the past and recently IMF screws have been introduced. This technique has various advantages, including ease of use, less time consumption, less trauma to the surrounding soft tissues, and relatively reduced risk of needle stick injury. This study evaluates the efficacy of IMF screws over arch bar IMF before definitive fixation of facial fractures.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This study is a randomized clinical study. Study population consists of 20 patients with mandibu-lar fractures requiring IMF with open reduction and reported to Department of Oral Surgery, Modern Dental College and Research Centre, Indore, Madhya Pradesh, India between September 2012 and April 2015. Two groups were formed with 10 patients in each group. In the first group, IMF was achieved using the Erich's arch bar and wires. In the second group, IMF was achieved using self-tapping IMF screw. The patients were assessed for various parameters, such as the time required in minutes for the IMF stability of fixation, postoperative occlusion, postoperative pain, periodontal health, oral hygiene, and incidence of needle stick injury.

RESULTS

All the cases had stable IMF in both groups. At the end of 14th day, overall oral hygiene was poor in group I and good in group II, significant statistically (p = 0.031). Iatrogenic injury to tooth was absent in group I and present in 1 case in group II, not significant statistically (p = 0.305). Average time taken for the IMF in group I was 74.9 minutes, with the range of 58 to 88 minutes, and in group II was 16.1 minutes, with the range of 11 to 22 minutes, which is highly significant statistically (p = 0.001). Needle stick injuries were taken as positive if glove perforation was present and these were reported in four cases in group I, whereas in group II, no case had incidence of needle stick injuries, which shows significant statistically (p = 0.025).

CONCLUSION

After this study, we can conclude that IMF self-tapping screw is a proven useful technique of IMF. Intermaxillary fixation is a safe and less time-consuming method but with various shortcomings and complications, which the surgeon must be aware of while providing treatment.

CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE

Keywords: Erich's arch bar, Intermaxillary fixation, Self-tapping intermaxillary fixation screws.

Drill-related root injury caused by intraoperative intermaxillary fixation: an analysis of 1067 screw applications

BACKGROUND/AIMS

Intermaxillary fixation is a standard procedure for the treatment of mandibular fractures or in orthognathic surgery. Predrilling for screws poses the risk of accidental tooth root injury, potentially leading to further pathological processes. Limited evidence about accidental tooth injury during intermaxillary fixation is available due to heterogenous study designs. The aim of this study was to evaluate the risk of root trauma using predrilled transgingival fixation screws and the clinical consequences for the affected teeth.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

In this retrospective study, the data of open reduction and internal fixation surgery files with intraoperative application of predrilled intermaxillary fixation screws were analysed. The postoperative radiographic images were evaluated for the occurrence of tooth root injury. Patients diagnosed with root injury were clinically followed up with respect to the dental health for the affected teeth.

RESULTS

A total of 133 radiologically diagnosed tooth root injuries were recorded (12.5% of screws). The median follow-up interval was 16 months (range: 3-77 months). The return rate was 49.5% for all patients. Of these, four of the injured teeth (3%) needed endodontic treatment. No toothache was reported, no tooth was lost, and no negative impact on periodontal health was clinically evident.

CONCLUSION

Intermaxillary fixation with predrilled transgingival screws is a safe way to manage mandibular fractures. The incidence of tooth root injury is not uncommon, but the adverse side effects are rare and the health of the affected teeth is mostly not compromised.

Intermaxillary Fixation Screw Morbidity in Treatment of Mandibular Fractures-A Retrospective Study

PURPOSE

The aim of the present retrospective study was to investigate the morbidity of screws used for intermaxillary fixation (IMF) in the treatment of mandibular fractures. A review of the published data was also performed for a comparison of outcomes. Our hypothesis was that the use of screws for IMF of mandibular fractures would result in minimal morbidity.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Patients treated for mandibular fractures from 2007 to 2013, using screws for IMF, using the international diagnosis code for mandibular fracture, DS026, were anonymously selected (Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Rigshospitalet, University Hospital of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark). The fracture type, radiographic findings, treatment modality, screw type and number, and root damage were recorded. For the outcome comparison, a review of the published data regarding iatrogenic dental root damage caused by screw fixation was performed in May 2015.

RESULTS

A total of 156 patients had undergone IMF with screws. The total number of screws was 793. The incidence of root lesions was 0.25% centrally and 0.88% peripherally. The incidence of screw loss was 0.13% and that of screw loosening was 1.89%. In the review, 737 related reports were identified in a search of PubMed and the Cochrane Library. Of these, 25 were considered suitable for inclusion. A lack of valid evidence resulted in a descriptive analysis, because a meta-analysis of the data was not possible.

CONCLUSIONS

The results of the present retrospective study have shown that the use of screws is a valid choice for IMF in mandibular fracture treatment with minimal morbidity. The 793 screws used for IMF resulted in a negligible amount of central and peripheral tooth root trauma.

An Alternative Method of Intermaxillary Fixation for Simple Pediatric Mandible Fractures

PURPOSE

Mandibular fractures represent a substantial portion of facial fractures in the pediatric population. Pediatric mandibles differ from their adult counterparts in the presence of mixed dentition. Avoidance of injury to developing tooth follicles is critical. Simple mandibular fractures can be treated with intermaxillary fixation (IMF) using arch bars or bone screws. This report describes an alternative to these methods using silk sutures and an algorithm to assist in treating simple mandibular fractures in the pediatric population.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

A retrospective chart review was performed and the records of 1 surgeon were examined. Pediatric patients who underwent treatment for a mandibular fracture in the operating room from 2011 to 2015 were identified using Common Procedural Terminology codes. Data collected included age, gender, type of fracture, type of treatment used, duration of fixation, and presence of complications.

RESULTS

Five patients with a mean age of 6.8 years at presentation were identified. Fracture types were unilateral fractures of the condylar neck (n = 3), bilateral fractures of the condylar head (n = 1), and a unilateral fracture of the condylar head with an associated parasymphyseal fracture (n = 1). IMF was performed in 4 patients using silk sutures, and bone screw fixation was performed in the other patient. No post-treatment complications or malocclusion were reported. Average duration of IMF was 18.5 days.

CONCLUSIONS

An algorithm is presented to assist in the treatment of pediatric mandibular fractures. Silk suture fixation is a viable and safe alternative to arch bars or bone screws for routine mandibular fractures.

A Comparison of Torque Forces Used to Apply Intermaxillary Fixation Screws

PURPOSE

When establishing intermaxillary fixation (IMF) using bone screws, fracture of a screw is a potential complication. This study was conducted to investigate the forces that arise at bone screw insertion and to determine safety margins between torque for manually tightened insertion and torque until breakage for 3 different IMF screw systems, which could ultimately favor the use of 1 IMF screw system based on decreased risk of complications.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

IMF screws were placed into porcine mandibles by 3 oral and maxillofacial surgeons. The porcine mandibles were evaluated for cortical thickness and suitable insertion sites by cone-beam computed tomography. Measurements of torque until failure were performed on predrilled aluminum plates by the primary author. A digital torque screwdriver measured 180 data points per second as continuous data and recorded the measurements.

RESULTS

Measurements indicated clear differences in torsion forces between manually tightened insertions and torque until breakage for all 3 IMF screw systems. No statistical difference in safety margins was found among the IMF screw systems.

CONCLUSIONS

Because no statistical differences in safety margins were found among the IMF screw systems, this study indicates that IMF screw selection should be based on other clinical factors, such as ease of use or economic factors. Future prospective studies are necessary to fully determine evidence-based criteria for IMF screw selection.

Use of a Y-Shaped Plate for Intermaxillary Fixation

Maxillomandibular fractures usually require intermaxillary fixation as a means to immobilize and stabilize the fracture and to re-establish proper occlusion. Arch bars or intermaxillary fixation screws cannot be used for edentulous patients or for patients who have poor dental health. Here, we present a case of repeated intermaxillary fixation failure in a patient weak alveolar rigidity secondary to multiple dental implants. Because single-point fixation screws were not strong enough to maintain proper occlusion, we have used Y-shaped plates to provide more rigid anchoring points for the intermaxillary wires. We suggest that this method should be considered for patients in whom conventional fixation methods are inappropriate or have failed.

Is the Erich arch bar the best intermaxillary fixation method in maxillofacial fractures? A systematic review

Background

Intermaxillary fixation is used to achieve proper occlusion during and after oral and maxillofacial fracture surgery. The aim of this systematic review was to compare Erich arch bar fixation with other intermaxillary fixation methods in terms of the operating time, safety during installation, oral health maintenance and occlusal stability.

Material and Methods

An electronic online search was conducted of the Scirus, PubMed, Ovid, Cochrane Library and VHL databases. A clinical trial dating from the inception of the data bases until August 2013 was selected. Studies that compared Erich arch bars with other intermaxillary fixation methods in patients older than 18 years-old were included. The studies were assessed by two independent reviewers. The methodological quality of each article was analyzed.

Results

Nine hundred and twenty-five manuscripts were found. Seven relevant articles were analyzed in this review. The risk of bias was considered moderate for four studies and high for three clinical trials.

Conclusions

There is not enough evidence to conclude that the Erich arch bar is the best intermaxillary fixation method in cases of oral and maxillofacial fractures.

Key words: Facial injuries, jaw fixation techniques, mandible, maxilla.

Use of a single miniplate to achieve intra operative intermaxillary fixation

There are different treatment modalities mentioned in the literature for achieving intermaxillary fixation (IMF). Arch bars are time consuming, can cause damage to the periodontium, maintenance of oral hygiene is poor. Eyelets are not suitable for dentitions that carry extensive crown and bridge work. IMF screw causes root damage. To avoid all these complications we recommended the use of single miniplate for achieving IMF.