Complications with intermaxillary fixation screws in the management of fractured mandibles

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.

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.

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.

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.

Fracture propagation associated with intermaxillary fixation screws in maxillofacial trauma

Intermaxillary fixation (IMF) screws are commonly used for maxillomandibular immobilization in the management of mandible fractures as definitive closed reduction treatment or in adjunct intraoperatively. In this report, we present three cases of isolated unilateral mandible fractures, in which IMF screws were used and resulted in propagation of a second fracture on the contralateral side, at the site where IMF screws were placed during the surgery. The use of IMF screws has many advantages with an overall low risk of morbidity, however, there are potential complications that must be recognized.

Types of Intermaxillary Fixation and Their Interaction With Palatine Fracture Reduction

PURPOSE

To compare 3 types of intermaxillary fixation (IMF) and their behavior when subjected to tension forces in 3 study models with a palatine fracture feature.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

An experimental study of 3 identical acrylic models was performed. All had the same palatine fracture pattern on the maxillary midline. All were reduced with different IMF methods (ie, direct interdental wiring, Erich arch bars, and self-tapping screws). Tension forces were applied to the study models to observe the fracture line behavior.

RESULTS

IMF with direct interdental wiring did not cause significant separation of the fracture feature in the anterior or posterior sector. IMF with the Erich arch bars caused a 2-mm separation in the anterior sector and 0 mm in the posterior sector. The IMF with self-tapping screws caused a 3-mm separation in the anterior sector and 1 mm in the posterior sector.

CONCLUSIONS

IMF using self-tapping screws resulted in the greatest separation of the fracture compared with the results with Erich arch bars and direct interdental wiring. IMF with self-tapping screws tended to displace the fracture lines by application of the vector furthest from the center of resistance.

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.

Use of Transgingival Lag Screw Osteosynthesis in the Management of Alveolar Process Fracture

The purpose of this study is to check the efficacy of transgingival lag screw osteosynthesis in alveolar process fractures of maxilla and mandible. A single-arm nonrandomized observational study was performed for the treatment of alveolar process fractures of maxilla and mandible. In this study, 20 mixed age group patients with alveolar process fracture were included. All the patients were treated by a 2.0-mm transgingival screw fixation under local or general anesthesia. All the patients were evaluated for fracture stability, anatomical reduction, bone loss and bone resorption of alveolar process, tooth loss, and wound infection at 3 months of follow-up. A simple descriptive statistical analysis was done to evaluate the parameters and it was shown that the treatment of alveolar process fracture with two or three lag screws provides adequate fracture stability and anatomical reduction with no signs of bone loss and tooth loss, and wound infections were noted post lag screw fixation. The study concludes that transgingival lag screw fixation is a suitable alternative for alveolar process fractures in all the age groups and two to three lag screws are generally sufficient to fix fractured alveolar process either under local anesthesia or general anesthesia.

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.

Treatment Outcomes for Isolated Maxillary Complex Fractures with Maxillomandibular Screws

Intermaxillary fixation (IMF) is a basic and fundamental principle in the management of patients with fractures of the maxillomandibular complex. There are several shortcomings related to the conventionally recommended tooth-mounted devices that are used to achieve IMF. To circumvent these, the use of bone-borne screws has been advocated. We present a series of maxillary fractures treated with IMF screws. Over a 12-month period, 15 cases of maxillary fracture were managed with open reduction and bone plate fixation. IMF screws were used to achieve IMF intraoperatively and for a short duration postoperatively. Eight cortical titanium screws were inserted transmucosally, two for each quadrant at the junction of the attached and mobile mucosa. Satisfactory occlusion was achieved in all the patients with few complications. IMF screw fixation was observed to be a safe and quick method for open reduction of maxillary fractures. Tooth-borne devices are associated with problems such as poor oral hygiene and periodontal health, extrusion of teeth, loss of tooth vitality, traumatic ulcers of buccal and labial mucosa, and needle stick injury to the operator. These procedures are also time consuming. The use of cortical bone screws is a quicker and safe alternative for achieving satisfactory IMF.

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.

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 screws versus Erich arch bars in mandibular fractures: A comparative study and review of literature

Objective:

Various techniques have been employed from time to time to achieve maxillomamdibular fixation. Although arch bars provide an effective and versatile means of maxillomandibular fixation, their use is not without shortcomings. However the introduction of intermaxillary fixation screws (IMF) has eliminated many of these issues of arch bars. The aim of the present study was to compare the advantages and disadvantages of intermaxillary fixation screws over the Erich arch bars in mandibular fractures.

Materials and Methods:

Sixty dentulous patients who reported to Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Al-Ameen Dental College and Hospital, Bijapur with mandibular fractures and required intermaxillary fixation as a part of treatment plan followd by open reduction and internal fixation under GA were selected and randomly divided into 2 groups of 30 patients each that is Group A and Group B. Group A included patients who received intermaxillary fixation with Erich arch bars. Group B includes patients who received intermaxillary fixation with IMF Screws. The parameters compared in both the groups included, surgical time taken, gloves perforation, post-operative occlusion, IMF stability, oral hygiene, patient acceptance and comfort and non-vitality characteristics.

Results:

The average surgical time taken and gloves perforations were more in Group A,the patient acceptance and oral hygiene was better in Group B, there was not much statistically significant difference in postoperative occlusion and IMF stability in both groups. Accidental root perforation was the only limitation of IMF screws.

Conclusion:

Intermaxillary fixation with IMF screws is more efficacious compared to Erich arch bars in the treatment of mandibular fractures.

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.

Severe tooth loss after root damage caused by predrilled intermaxillary fixation screw: a case report

Intermaxillary fixation (IMF) with screws is routinely used as a conservative therapy or to obtain normal occlusion during the surgical procedure of open reduction and internal fixation for treating mandibular fractures. The risk of iatrogenic dental damage caused by interdental drilling is widely known. Several side effects are described, including loss of response to pulp sensibility testing, root fracture, and, loss of the tooth. This is a case report about a young man who had undergone temporary IMF treatment with a single proven root damage. The patient did not appear for follow-up but he presented 5 years afterward with local purulent osteomyelitis concerning the affected and the adjacent teeth. Osteotomy and extraction of two premolars and one molar were necessary for rehabilitation. This case report illustrates the importance of careful use of predrilled IMF screws and the necessity of frequent follow-ups in cases of proven tooth root damage due to IMF treatment.

Intraoral epimucosal fixation for reducible maxillary fractures of the jaws; surgical considerations in comparison to current techniques

Fractures of the jaw are often treated with rigid and stable internal fixation using plates or miniplates. Early surgery for jaw fractures is the optimal treatment; however, if a late treatment is begun, often the adoption of other protocols is needed. When the jaw fracture has one free bone fragment with 2 full-thickness lesions of mucoperiosteal soft tissues both on the buccal and palatal sides, the risk of resorption or necrosis is very high after elevating a mucoperiosteal flap for rigid fixation. For this reason, we developed an intraoral epimucosal fixation technique using self-locking screws and plates. Substantial advantages of this new technique, in comparison with other commonly used fixation techniques, consisted in the prevention of bone resorption or necrosis by safe and simple screw insertion procedure after manipulation of the fracture for reduction in closed surgery. Major indications for epimucosal fixation in closed surgery are the presence of jaw fractures without dislocation or reducible jaw fractures by manipulation particularly in edentulous patients.

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.

Finite Element Analysis of Bone Stress for Miniscrew Implant Proximal to Root Under Occlusal Force and Implant Loading

Because of the narrow interradicular spaces and varying oral anatomies of individual patients, there is a very high risk of root proximity during the mini implants inserting. The authors hypothesized that normal occlusal loading and implant loading affected the stability of miniscrew implants placed in proximity or contact with the adjacent root. The authors implemented finite element analysis (FEA) to examine the effectiveness of root proximity and root contact. Stress distribution in the bone was assessed at different degrees of root proximity by generating 4 finite element models: the implant touches the root surface, the implant was embedded in the periodontal membrane, the implant touches the periodontal surface, and the implant touches nothing. Finite element analysis was then carried out with simulations of 2 loading conditions for each model: condition A, involving only tooth loading and condition B, involving both tooth and implant loading. Under loading condition A, the maximum stress on the bone for the implant touching the root was the distinctly higher than that for the other models. For loading condition B, peak stress areas for the implant touching the root were the area around the neck of the mini implant and the point of the mini implant touches the root. The results of this study suggest that normal occlusal loading and implant loading contribute to the instability of the mini implant when the mini implant touches the root.

Miniscrews versus surgical archwires for intermaxillary fixation in adults after orthognathic surgery

Objective

We compared the skeletal and dental changes that resulted from the use of two methods of intermaxillary fixation (IMF)-miniscrews and surgical archwire-in 74 adult patients who had Class III malocclusion and were treated with the same orthognathic surgical procedure at a hospital in Korea.

Methods

All the patients underwent Le Fort I osteotomy and bilateral sagittal split ramus osteotomy with rigid fixation. They were divided into two groups according to the type of IMF used-group 1 underwent surgical archwire fixation and group 2 underwent orthodontic miniscrew fixation. In a series of cephalograms for each patient, we compared vertical and horizontal tooth-position measurements: (a) immediately after surgery (T₀), (b) 3 months after surgery (T₁), and (c) 6 months after surgery (T₂). Cephalometric changes within each group were examined using one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) while the independent samples t-test procedure was used to compare the two groups.

Results

After surgery, the maxillary incisors tended to be proclined in both groups although there were no significant differences. Incisor overbite increased significantly in both groups from T₀ to T₁, and the miniscrew group (group 2) showed slightly greater overbite than the archwire group (group 1).

Conclusions

This study suggest that the use of orthodontic miniscrews and orthodontic surgical archwire for IMF in adult patients results in similar skeletal and dental changes.

Comparison of intermaxillary fixation screw versus eyelet interdental wiring for intermaxillary fixation in minimally displaced mandibular fracture: a randomized clinical study

PURPOSE

The aim of the present randomized study was to evaluate the efficacy of intermaxillary fixation screw (IMFS) versus eyelet interdental wiring for intermaxillary fixation (IMF) in minimally displaced mandibular fractures.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A total of 50 patients with a minimally displaced mandibular fracture were enrolled, with 25 patients randomly selected for each group. In group I (study group, n = 25), the patients were treated using IMFS, and in group II (control group, n = 25), they received eyelet interdental wiring. Both techniques were assessed for the following parameters: time required for placement and removal of each type of IMF technique, time required for placement of IMF wires, postoperative occlusion, stability of the IMF wire, local anesthesia requirement during removal of each fixation type, oral hygiene status, glove perforation rate, and complications associated with both techniques. The collected data were analyzed using Student's unpaired t test or χ2 test. P < .05 was considered significant and the Statistical Package for Social Sciences software, version 10, was used for analysis.

RESULTS

The average time required for placement in groups I and II was 17.56 and 35.08 minutes, respectively (P = .000). The time required for placement of the IMF wire in group I was 2.1 minutes and in group II was 6 minutes. The oral hygiene status was assessed, and the mean plaque index score for groups I and II was 1.44 and 2.12, respectively (P = .00). The glove perforation rate was much less in group I than in group II. Finally, the most common complication in both groups was mucosal growth.

CONCLUSIONS

The results established the supremacy of IMFS compared with eyelet interdental wiring. Thus, we have concluded that IMFS, in the present scenario, is a safe and time-saving technique. IMFS is a cost-effective, straightforward, and viable alternative to cumbersome eyelet interdental and other wiring techniques for providing IMF, with satisfactory occlusion during closed reduction or intraoperative open reduction internal fixation of fractures. In addition, oral hygiene can be maintained, and the glove perforation rate was very low using IMFS. The relatively small sample size and limited follow-up period were the study limitations.

3D mapping of safe and danger zones in the maxilla and mandible for the placement of intermaxillary fixation screws

Intermaxillary (IMF) screws feature several advantages over other devices used for intermaxillary fixation, but using cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) scans to determine the safe and danger zones to place these devices for all patients can be expensive. This study aimed to determine the optimal interradicular and buccopalatal/buccolingual spaces for IMF screw placement in the maxilla and mandible. The CBCT volumetric data of 193 patients was used to generate transaxial slices between the second molar on the right to the second molar on the left in both arches. The mean interradicular and buccopalatal/buccolingual distances and standard deviation values were obtained at heights of 2, 5, 8 and 11 mm from the alveolar bone crest. An IMF screw with a diameter of 1.0 mm and length of 7 mm can be placed distal to the canines (2 - 11 mm from the alveolar crest) and less than 8 mm between the molars in the maxilla. In the mandible, the safest position is distal to the first premolar (more than 5 mm) and distal to the second premolar (more than 2 mm). There was a significant difference (p<0.05) between the right and left quadrants. The colour coding 3D template showed the safe and danger zones based on the mesiodistal, buccopalatal and buccolingual distances in the maxilla and mandible.The safest sites for IMF screw insertion in the maxilla were between the canines and first premolars and between the first and second molars. In the mandible, the safest sites were between the first and second premolars and between the second premolar and first molar. However, the IMF screw should not exceed 1.0 mm in diameter and 7 mm in length.

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.

[Intermaxillary intraoperative fixation of mandibular fractures: arch bars or fixation screws?]

INTRODUCTION

The gold standard management of mandibular fractures is open reduction and osteosynthesis associated with intermaxillary fixation. The use of intermaxillary fixation screws for 20 years has considerably reduced the number of intermaxillary fixation with arch bars. The aim of our review was to identify current indications and contraindications of each technique.

INTERMAXILLARY FIXATION TECHNIQUES

We present a short history and compare the two techniques with recently published assets, drawbacks, and complications.

DISCUSSION

The indications of intermaxillary fixation screws are uni- or bifocal fractures without or with minimal displacement. Their use is contraindicated in any other type of fracture, which should still be treated with arch bar fixation.

Manual reduction of mandibular fractures before internal fixation leads to shorter operative duration and equivalent outcomes when compared with reduction with intermaxillary fixation

PURPOSE

Open reduction of mandibular fractures before internal fixation is most commonly performed by 1 of 2 methods: intermaxillary fixation (IMF) or manual reduction. There are risks to both patient and clinician associated with using IMF. Furthermore, previous retrospective studies have failed to show any advantage in its use. The purpose of this study was to directly compare the use of manual reduction (experimental group) and IMF (control group) in open reduction-internal fixation of mandibular fractures.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Patients who presented with isolated mandibular fractures at 2 hospitals in Queensland, Australia, from May 2009 to June 2010 were enrolled in a prospective controlled trial comparing IMF and manual reduction. The outcome measures were operative duration (primary outcome), as well as radiographic outcome, occlusal outcome, and complications (secondary outcomes). The patient and assessor were blinded to the type of reduction used before fixation. The study hypothesis is that manual reduction allows internal fixation in a shorter time than IMF with an equivalent outcome.

RESULTS

We recruited 50 patients, 26 allocated to IMF and 24 allocated to manual reduction before internal fixation of mandibular fractures. IMF was associated with an increased duration of procedure (P < .001) and increased complication rate (P = .063), without any observable benefit with regard to either radiographic outcome or occlusal outcome.

CONCLUSIONS

IMF is not required in open reduction-internal fixation of mandibular fractures that met our inclusion criteria. IMF is associated with increased costs to the health service and risks to both the patient and clinician.

The Use of MMF Screws: Surgical Technique, Indications, Contraindications, and Common Problems in Review of the Literature

Mandibulo-maxillary fixation (MMF) screws are inserted into the bony base of both jaws in the process of fracture realignment and immobilisation. The screw heads act as anchor points to fasten wire loops or rubber bands connecting the mandible to the maxilla. Traditional interdental chain-linked wiring or arch bar techniques provide the anchorage by attached cleats, hooks, or eyelets. In comparison to these tooth-borne appliances MMF screws facilitate and shorten the way to achieve intermaxillary fixation considerably. In addition, MMF screws help to reduce the hazards of glove perforation and wire stick injuries. On the downside, MMF screws are attributed with the risk of tooth root damage and a lack of versatility beyond the pure maintenance of occlusion such as stabilizing loose teeth or splinting fragments of the alveolar process. The surgical technique of MMF screws as well as the pros and cons of the clinical application are reviewed. The adequate screw placement to prevent serious tooth root injuries is still an issue to rethink and modify conceptual guidelines.

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.

Self Tapping Screws v/s Erich Arch Bar for Inter Maxillary Fixation: A Comparative Clinical Study in the Treatment of Mandibular Fractures

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVE

Numerous methods have been described for achievement of Intermaxillary fixation in the treatment of fractures of facial skeleton. Conventional methods like Erich arch bars and eyelet wires are currently most common methods for achieving intermaxillary fixation (IMF), but they have their own disadvantages. Since 1989, IMF using intraoral self tapping IMF screws has been introduced for treatment of mandibular fractures. The aim of this work was to compare the efficacy, advantages, disadvantages indications and potential complications associated with Erich archbar v/s self tapping IMF screws in the management of mandibular fractures.

METHODS

Twenty patients with mandibular fractures, reporting to Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, The Oxford Dental College, Bangalore were evaluated, to compare the efficacy of two techniques. The parameters considered were, time taken, perforations in the gloves, patient acceptance, oral hygiene, iatrogenic dental injuries, and needle stick injuries during IMF with Erich arch Bar and self tapping IMF screws.

RESULTS

The mean time taken for IMF was 8.52 ± 2.7 min with screws as compared to 100 min with Erich arch bars. Mean number of perforations were significantly more in Group II. Oral hygiene status was good in 90% and fair in 10% of Group I and 100% fair in Group II patients.

CONCLUSION

Use of self tapping IMF screws for intermaxillary fixation is a valid alternative to conventional Erich arch bars in the treatment of mandibular fractures. Iatrogenic injury to dental roots is the most important problem to this procedure, which can be minimized by careful radiographic evaluation and treatment planning.

Complications using intermaxillary fixation screws

PURPOSE

The most important part of facial bone fracture treatment is immobilization. Bandaging of the fractured mandible was the first immobilization device used in ancient Greece. Since then, various methods with different shapes and uses were introduced in the treatment of maxillofacial trauma patients. Intermaxillary fixation (IMF) with bone screws was first used in 1981. This technique has advantages, including quickness, ease of use, less trauma, and reduced risk of needle-stick injury. We analyze the advantages and disadvantages of this technique.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

In a retrospective study on 73 patients requiring IMF, the complications of IMF screws were analyzed. Complications were divided into 2 groups: dental and nondental. Follow-up examinations consisted of clinical and panoramic radiographic examinations.

RESULTS

In 24 teeth (6.5%) in 13 patients (17.8%), dental complications occurred. No dental treatment was needed in 4 patients (5.5%). The site at which dental complications occurred during operation in the majority of cases was the anterior mandible. Nondental complications occurred in 63 screws (16.9%) in 39 patients (54.2%). The most common complication was screw loosening. Screw soft tissue coverage occurred in 21 screws.

CONCLUSION

The use of IMF screws is simple and decreases the time required for surgery, but because of their complications, they still require punctuality.