Comparative assessment of two methods used for interdental immobilization

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.

Clinical Outcomes of ULTRA EZY Bar vs Erich Arch Bar in Conservative Management of Maxillofacial Fractures: A Randomized Controlled Trial

Objective

Various techniques have been employed from time to time to achieve maxillomandibular fixation, and arch bars provide an effective and versatile means of maxillomandibular fixation, and however, some of the issues occurring with it have been eliminated with the introduction of Ultralock EZY bar. The aim of the present study is to compare the advantages and disadvantages of Ultralock Ezy bar over the Erich arch bar in mid-face fracture or maxillary fracture or mandibular fracture or both requiring conservative treatment.

Materials and Methods

A total of 20 patients reported to the Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery in Sudha Rustagi Dental College and Hospital, Faridabad, with mid-face fracture/maxillary fracture, mandibular fracture or both. The treatment plan required intermaxillary fixation. As a part of treatment plan, group was selected randomly divided into 20 arches in each group that is test arch group and control arch group.Test arch group included arches in which Ultralock EZY bar was done. Control arch group included arches in which Erich arch bar was done. The parameters compared in both the groups were surgical time taken, injuries due to wires, arch bar stability, oral hygiene index, patient acceptance and comfort, pulp vitality, and complication (if any).

Results

The average surgical time taken was less, and oral hygiene status and patient acceptance were better in test group. There was not much statistically significant difference in pulp vitality but number of cases with absence of pulp vitality were more in test group.

Conclusion

This study emphasizes the use of Ultralock Ezy bar as a quick and easy method than Erich arch bar. Oral hygiene maintenance was comparatively better in patients with Ultralock Ezy bar than those with Erich arch bar. For the patients who require long-term IMF, Ultralock Ezy bars can be a viable option.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s12663-022-01821-3.

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.

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

INTRODUCTION

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

MATERIALS AND METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

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.

Use of oral screen for preventing soft tissue injuries associated with use of arch bars: a prospective randomized clinical study

PURPOSE

The purpose of the present study was to access the efficacy of oral screen in protection of arch bar-induced soft tissue injury after achieving maxillomandibular fixation (MMF).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This study is a randomized clinical trial. The study sample was derived from the population of patients who required MMF and reported from January 2017 to December 2017. A total of 60 patients in whom application of an Erich arch bar was indicated for MMF were selected for the study. The patients were divided into two groups. In group I, only MMF was done; however, in group II, oral screen was used after MMF. The patients were assessed for soft tissue injury, pain, and maintenance of oral hygiene. All parameters were compared statistically using the chi-square test and Student's t test.

RESULTS

The soft tissue injury in group I (73.33%) was greater than that in group II (3.33%). The pain was worse in group I than in group II. The mean value of plaque index in group II is 1.20 and in group I is 2.89. It signifies that plaque deposition was more in group I.

CONCLUSION

Soft tissue injury and pain were less, as well as oral hygiene maintenance is better in patients who used oral screen after the placement of Erich arch bars.

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.

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.

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.

Open Reduction and Internal Fixation of Mandibular Fracture without Rigid Maxillomandibular Fixation

Introduction The ability to treat fracture with open reduction and internal fixation (OR/IF) has dramatically revolutionized the approach to mandible fracture. With OR/IF, the postoperative role of rigid maxillomandibular fixation (MMF) has declined, but it is used to maintain proper occlusion until internal fixation of the fracture is achieved. Objective To assess intraoperative manual MMF during OR/IF of selected cases of mandibular fractures. Methods This prospective study was conducted on 80 patients with isolated mandibular fractures managed by OR/IF using two titanium miniplates. The patients were classified into two groups: a control group (40 patients) treated by OR/IF after intraoperative rigid MMF followed by immediate MMF removal, and a study group (40 patients) treated by rigid MMF, which was replaced by temporary intraoperative manual MMF (3MF) until plate fixation. Results There were no significant differences of the postoperative complication and dental occlusion, although a highly significant reduction of operative time was achieved in the 3MF group. Patient who received the 3MF technique had statistically significantly better average intrinsic vertical mouth opening in the early postoperative period (1 week after surgery), and normal mouth opening could be achieved in all cases in both groups 8 weeks after surgery. Conclusions Intraoperative rigid MMF is not mandatory and can be replaced in selected cases of fracture mandible by manual maintenance of proper dental occlusion until hardware fixation, gaining the advantages of shorter operative time and less risk of blood-transmitted diseases to the surgical team and the patient in addition to the benefits of immediate postoperative mandible mobilization.

Treatment of Mandibular Fractures Using Intermaxillary Fixation and Vacuum Forming Splints: A Comparative Study

OBJECTIVE

The study was done to compare the clinical efficacy of vacuum formed splints and arch bar in treating minimally displaced mandibular fractures.

METHOD

Forty patients were included in two groups. Group 1 was treated with custom made splints and group 2 with conventional arch bar. Patients were recalled on 3rd, 7th, 14th day and on the day of removal of the appliance. Periodontal status, stability of appliance and chair side time were evaluated.

RESULTS

The mean chair side time taken by vacuum formed splint was 18.05 min and conventional arch bar fixation was 68.25 min. 8.3 % of patients with vacuum formed splints had poor oral hygiene in comparison with 25 % of patients with conventional arch bar. 70 % of patients with vacuum formed splints and 60 % of the patients with conventional arch bars were comfortable in mastication during treatment.

CONCLUSION

Vacuum formed splints has better advantages over arch bar with respect to chair side time, periodontal health, patient's compliance of maintaining oral hygiene, mastication and speech. Vacuum formed splints avoid needle stick injuries. So, they can be used for intermaxillary fixation in minimally displaced mandibular fractures.

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.

Evaluation of two different methods of arch bar application: a comparative prospective study

PURPOSE

To comparatively evaluate the efficacy of a pencil type wire twister and the normal wire twister in terms of various parameters during arch bars application.

METHOD

The study involved residents of the department enrolled in MDS course. Two study groups of 60 patients each were made by randomly selecting the patients from the outpatient department of Oral and Maxillofacial surgery who required arch bar application. Group A included the patients who underwent upper and lower arch bar application with the use of a pencil type twister and group B included patients who underwent arch bar application with a normal wire twister. All respondents were given a questionnaire after the completion of procedure involving the use of medical sharps. The paired samples t test was used for statistical analysis.

RESULT

Among group A, mean glove perforations, actual wire stick injuries, mean time taken to complete the procedure, mean wire breakage during the procedure was less than in group B. Comfort level of patients and Ease of operator while performing the procedure was more in group A than in group B. Frictional abrasion of the finger was not associated with the use of pencil type twister. Overall rating of the procedure was more in group A than group B.

CONCLUSION

The use of pencil type wire twister outweighs normal wire twister in various ways. It increases the overall efficacy of the operator during the procedure.

Is There Enough Evidence to Regularly Apply Bone Screws for Intermaxillary Fixation in Mandibular Fractures?

PURPOSE

Intermaxillary fixation (IMF) is traditionally achieved with arch bars; however, this method has several well-known disadvantages and other techniques, such as bone screws, are available. This study evaluated current evidence regarding these IMF screws (IMFSs) for mandibular trauma and to assess whether this allows a change of treatment protocol for IMF.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A systematic electronic literature search was conducted in the PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane databases. Titles and abstracts retrieved from the search were screened and evaluated for inclusion and exclusion criteria. The full text of all relevant articles was read and citation lists were checked for any missing references. All randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were subjected to a quality assessment. Included articles were checked for outcome measurements concerning occlusion, operative time, oral hygiene, root trauma, wire-stick injuries, and mucosa overgrowth.

RESULTS

Twenty-two articles (17 case series, 4 RCTs, and 1 cohort study) were included. None of the RCTs scored high methodologic results in the quality assessment. The results suggest IMFSs have similar malocclusion rates as arch bars, fewer wire-stick injuries, improved oral hygiene, and shorter operative time. Root damage is less likely to occur with self-drilling screws and seldom requires treatment.

CONCLUSIONS

Although the methodologic quality of the included studies is poor, self-drilling IMFSs are recommended for temporary per-operative IMF of noncomminuted mandibular fractures. More high-quality studies are required to allow an evidence-based change of protocol.

Treatment outcomes with the use of maxillomandibular fixation screws in the management of mandible fractures

PURPOSE

The purpose of this prospective randomized study was to assess whether uncomplicated mandible fractures could be treated successfully in an open or closed fashion using maxillomandibular fixation (MMF) screws.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This was a prospective institutional review board-approved study involving 20 adult patients who presented to the university emergency department or oral and maxillofacial surgical clinic with uncomplicated mandible fractures. Patients who met the exclusion criteria consented to enter the study in the open reduction internal fixation (ORIF) or the closed (MMF) study group. Six to 8 MMF screws were used to obtain intermaxillary fixation (IMF) in the 2 groups. Screw failure was documented. All screws were removed at 5 to 6 weeks postoperatively. Insertional torque (IT) was measured at time of screw placement to assess primary stability. Clinical and photographic documentation was performed to assess fracture healing, occlusion, and gingival health. Ten-centimeter visual analog scales were used to assess patient-centered outcomes. Cone-beam computed tomography was performed to assess the long-term effects on the periodontium and roots. A cost comparison was performed to determine whether the use of screws was cost effective compared with arch bars.

RESULTS

Fifteen men and 5 women (mean age, 25.2 yr) entered the study. All patients displayed adequate fracture healing based on clinical examination. All patients had acceptable occlusion at 5 to 6 weeks postoperatively. Total screw failure was 27 of 106 screws (25.5%). Forty percent of screws placed in the MMF group failed compared with only 6% in the ORIF group. Gingival health scores were favorable. Factors that had a significant effect on screw failure included a lower IT (P = .002), use in closed (MMF) treatment (P < .001), and use in the posterior jaw (P = .012). Minimal pain was associated with the MMF screws and pre-existing occlusion was re-established based on patients' subjective responses. The MMF group reported a statistically significant lower quality of life (P < .001) compared with the ORIF group. There was only 1 screw site that had a facial cortical bone defect noted at 6-month follow-up CBCT examination. There were no discernible long-term root defects. Cost analysis showed that the use of MMF screws saved around $600 per patient in operating room usage cost alone compared with the estimated use of arch bars.

CONCLUSIONS

Uncomplicated mandible fractures were successfully treated using MMF screws in open and closed treatments. However, the utility in closed treatment was decreased because of significant screw failure and patient noncompliance. The screws were well tolerated by the patients. There was minimal long-term damage to the periodontium and dental roots. The cost of screws was more than offset by time savings.

Interventions for the management of mandibular fractures

BACKGROUND

Fractures of the mandible (lower jaw) are a common occurrence and usually related to interpersonal violence or road traffic accidents. Mandibular fractures may be treated using open (surgical) and closed (non-surgical) techniques. Fracture sites are immobilized with intermaxillary fixation (IMF) or other external or internal devices (i.e. plates and screws) to allow bone healing. Various techniques have been used, however uncertainty exists with respect to the specific indications for each approach.

OBJECTIVES

The objective of this review is to provide reliable evidence of the effects of any interventions either open (surgical) or closed (non-surgical) that can be used in the management of mandibular fractures, excluding the condyles, in adult patients.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the following electronic databases: the Cochrane Oral Health Group's Trials Register (to 28 February 2013), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2013, Issue 1), MEDLINE via OVID (1950 to 28 February 2013), EMBASE via OVID (1980 to 28 February 2013), metaRegister of Controlled Trials (to 7 April 2013), ClinicalTrials.gov (to 7 April 2013) and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (to 7 April 2013). The reference lists of all trials identified were checked for further studies. There were no restrictions regarding language or date of publication.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials evaluating the management of mandibular fractures without condylar involvement. Any studies that compared different treatment approaches were included.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

At least two review authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted data. Results were to be expressed as random-effects models using mean differences for continuous outcomes and risk ratios for dichotomous outcomes with 95% confidence intervals. Heterogeneity was to be investigated to include both clinical and methodological factors.

MAIN RESULTS

Twelve studies, assessed as high (six) and unclear (six) risk of bias, comprising 689 participants (830 fractures), were included. Interventions examined different plate materials and morphology; use of one or two lag screws; microplate versus miniplate; early and delayed mobilization; eyelet wires versus Rapid IMF™ and the management of angle fractures with intraoral access alone or combined with a transbuccal approach. Patient-oriented outcomes were largely ignored and post-operative pain scores were inadequately reported. Unfortunately, only one or two trials with small sample sizes were conducted for each comparison and outcome. Our results and conclusions should therefore be interpreted with caution. We were able to pool the results for two comparisons assessing one outcome. Pooled data from two studies comparing two miniplates versus one miniplate revealed no significant difference in the risk of post-operative infection of surgical site (risk ratio (RR) 1.32, 95% CI 0.41 to 4.22, P = 0.64, I(2) = 0%). Similarly, no difference in post-operative infection between the use of two 3-dimensional (3D) and standard (2D) miniplates was determined (RR 1.26, 95% CI 0.19 to 8.13, P = 0.81, I(2) = 27%). The included studies involved a small number of participants with a low number of events.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

This review illustrates that there is currently inadequate evidence to support the effectiveness of a single approach in the management of mandibular fractures without condylar involvement. The lack of high quality evidence may be explained by clinical diversity, variability in assessment tools used and difficulty in grading outcomes with existing measurement tools. Until high level evidence is available, treatment decisions should continue to be based on the clinician's prior experience and the individual circumstances.

Management of paediatric mandibular condylar fractures with screw-based semi-rigid intermaxillary fixation

This study was designed to evaluate the feasibility and safety of screw-based semi-rigid intermaxillary fixation (IMF) combined with a specially designed occlusal splint in the conservative treatment of paediatric mandibular condylar fractures. Thirteen paediatric patients with 20 sides of condylar fractures treated with semi-rigid IMF were analyzed retrospectively. Semi-rigid IMF was achieved by inserting self-drilling IMF screws into the anterior alveolar bone of the maxilla and mandible suspended with elastic bands. An occlusal splint with a molar fulcrum was used for functional repositioning of the condylar fragment. After 4 weeks, the screws and occlusal splint were removed. During a mean period of 28.6 months' follow-up, the patients' maximal mouth opening increased to a mean of 37.69 mm. Clinical and radiological examinations revealed satisfactory results in facial symmetry and condylar remodelling. No clinical symptoms or radiographic evidence showed dental injuries associated with screw insertion. This study suggests that this method might be a safe, easy, and effective management of paediatric condylar fractures.

Retrospective Study on Efficacy of Intermaxillary Fixation Screws

BACKGROUND

We evaluated the efficacy of intermaxillary fixation (IMF) screws in the treatment of mandibular fractures.

METHODS

Two hundred patients with mandibular fractures, treated by IMF using these screws, were evaluated by pre and postoperative panoramic radiographs. Clinical testing was carried out for vitality and abnormal mobility of teeth adjacent to the site of screw insertions. Other factors such as possible iatrogenic dental injuries, loss, breakage or screw cover by oral mucosa and postoperative occlusion were also studied.

RESULT

The most important complication noticed was iatrogenic damage to dental roots.

CONCLUSION

Use of intraoral cortical bone screws for IMF is a valid alternative to arch bars in the treatment of mandibular fractures. Iatrogenic injury to dental roots is the commonest problem which can be minimized by an experienced surgeon.

Management of the fractured edentulous atrophic mandible

BACKGROUND

Fractures of the atrophic and edentulous (toothless) mandible (lower jaw) are fairly common in elderly people. Atrophy and weakening tend to occur as a result of reduced vascularity and decreased blood flow. Treatment options for reduction and fixation include closed and open techniques, with the degree of atrophy having a significant influence on the type of treatment. Many methods have been proposed for treating fractures of the atrophic mandible but there is still some uncertainty as to which method has the most successful outcomes.

OBJECTIVES

The objective of this review was to provide reliable evidence regarding the effectiveness of any interventions either open or closed that can be used in the management of fractured edentulous atrophic mandibles.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Oral Health Group Trials Register; the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2005, Issue 4); MEDLINE from 1966 and EMBASE from 1980, both to 30th January 2006. Last search was done in January 2006.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials involving people over 55 years of age with fractures in the symphysis, parasymphysis, body, angle, ramus, condyle, and coronoid process of atrophic edentulous mandibles in which the fracture was a result of trauma, implant insertion or due to pathological fracture. Any studies that compared methods of management (open or closed reduction or fixation) were to be included.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Screening of eligible studies was conducted in duplicate and independently by two review authors. Results were to be expressed as random-effects models using mean differences for continuous outcomes and risk ratios for dichotomous outcomes with 95% confidence intervals. Heterogeneity was to be investigated including both clinical and methodological factors.

MAIN RESULTS

No eligible randomised controlled trials were identified.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

This review illustrates that there is currently inadequate evidence for the effectiveness of a single approach, either open or closed, in the management of fractured atrophic edentulous mandibles and that until high level evidence is available treatment decisions should continue to be based on clinician's prior experience. This absence of evidence may in part reflect a certain lack of clarity and the apparent diversity and lack of reliability in some of the traditional and normative predictors of successful outcomes.

An audit of mandibular fractures treated by intermaxillary fixation using intraoral cortical bone screws

INTRODUCTION

During the last 10 years, intermaxillary fixation using intraoral cortical bone screws has been introduced for the treatment of mandibular fractures. The aim of this work was to evaluate the indications and possible complications of this method.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Sixty-two patients with mandibular fractures, treated by intermaxillary fixation using these screws, were evaluated by preoperative and postoperative panoramic radiographs. Clinical testing was carried out for vitality and abnormal mobility of teeth adjacent to the site of screw insertions. To evaluate the efficacy of this method, different factors were considered such as possible iatrogenic dental injuries, loss, breakage or screw cover by oral mucosa and postoperative occlusion.

RESULTS

The most important complication was iatrogenic damage to dental roots (1.5%), 4.9% of the screws were covered by oral mucosa and 1.9% were lost, while none were broken. Malocclusion was observed in one patient (1.6%) and lack of consolidation of a displaced fracture of the mandibular body in another patient.

CONCLUSIONS

Use of intraoral cortical bone screws for intermaxillary fixation is a valid alternative to arch bars in the treatment of mandibular fractures. Iatrogenic injury to dental roots is the most important problem of this procedure, but can be minimized by an experienced surgeon.