Are Embrasure Wires Better Than Arch Bars for Intermaxillary Fixation?

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.

Prevalence of surgical site infections after open reduction and internal fixation for mandibular fractures: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Our study aims to estimate the prevalence of surgical site infections (SSI) following open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) for mandibular fractures and to determine the effect of potential moderators on it. A systematic literature search (Medline and Scopus databases) was conducted independently by two reviewers. The pooled prevalence with 95% confidence intervals was estimated. Quality assessment as well as outlier and influential analysis were performed. Additionally, subgroup and meta-regression analysis were conducted in order the effect of categorical and continuous variables on the estimated prevalence to be investigated. In total, seventy-five eligible studies (comprising a sum of 5825 participants) were included in this meta-analysis. The overall prevalence of SSI following ORIF for mandibular fractures was estimated as high as 4.2% (95% CI 3.0-5.6%) with significant heterogeneity between studies. One study was identified to be critically influential. In the subgroup analysis, the prevalence was 4.2% (95% CI 2.2-6.6%) among studies conducted in Europe, 4.3% (95% CI 3.1-5.6%) among studies conducted in Asia and higher among those conducted in America (7.3%) (95% CI 4.7-10.3%). It is important for healthcare professionals to be aware of the etiology of these infections, despite the relatively low rate of SSI in these procedures. However, further, well-designed prospective and retrospective studies need to be conducted in order this issue to be fully clarified.

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

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

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

PURPOSE

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

METHOD

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

STATISTICAL ANALYSIS

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

RESULT

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

CONCLUSION

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

Comparative Evaluation of the Embrasure Wire versus Arch Bar Maxillomandibular Fixation in the Management of Mandibular Fractures: Are Arch Bars Replaceable?

The aim of this prospective study was to appraise the role of embrasure wiring in the treatment of mandibular fractures over the arch bar as adjunctive techniques of maxillomandibular fixation (MMF). This study was conducted on 40 patients who were surgically treated for mandibular fractures with accessory use of MMF (embrasure: group A vs. arch bars: group B). All patients were evaluated for demographic data, etiology, and location of fracture. Characteristically, the complications, including wire injury, infection, and malocclusion, were recorded. The data were analyzed using Student's t -test and chi-square test as appropriate. Statistical significance was set at p  < 0.05). In this study, data from 40 patients were included. In group A (embrasure wiring), time required for placement of MMF was significantly less than (7.85 ± 0.81 minutes) that in group B, and also there was less incidence of wire prick to the operator in group A than in group B ( p  < 0.05). However, in terms of wire prick and malocclusion, no statistically significant difference was noted in groups A and B ( p  > 0.05). Patient treated with embrasure wiring intermaxillary fixation had better outcomes especially in terms of time of placement and less incidence of wire prick injury when compared with arch bar.

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.

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.

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.