Bone-Supported Arch Bars Are Associated With Comparable Outcomes to Erich Arch Bars in the Treatment of Mandibular Fractures With Intermaxillary Fixation

Maxillomandibular Fixation: Understanding the Risks and Benefits of Contemporary Techniques in Adults

Numerous techniques achieve maxillomandibular fixation (MMF), each with benefits and risks. While using Erich arch bars to achieve MMF has remained the gold standard through the last century, the technique has multiple limitations, which have spurred innovative approaches, such as intermaxillary fixation (IMF) screws, hybrid arch bars, embrasure wires, and dental occlusion ties. The surge in new MMF technologies over the past decade prompted this analysis to compare these techniques. A PubMed search was conducted to identify all current FDA-approved modern MMF technologies from 2005 through 2023, evaluating their advantages and limitations. Studies with controlled scientific comparisons of techniques were limited, precluding a systematic review. Analysis showed no definitive data exist to endorse one technique as a universal option. As multiple MMF options offer appropriate stability, a surgeon may choose an approach based upon numerous factors: comminution/instability; need for physiotherapy, including guiding elastics; safety; time of application/removal; and patient comfort. This article guides the selection between techniques based on these factors and presents a decision algorithm to assist surgeons in selecting the ideal MMF technique for each patient.

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 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.

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.

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 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.

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.

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.

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

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.