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

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.

Orthodontic Approaches in the Management of Mandibular Fractures: A Scoping Review

Non-surgical approaches have been proposed in the management of mandibular fractures, especially in children, but there is a lack of clear guidelines on the clinical indications of conservative approaches. The aim of this scoping review is to provide the available evidence of the role of the orthodontist in the management of mandibular fractures. The PRISMA-ScR guidelines were followed to select eligible articles from the PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science databases according to precise inclusion criteria. The research questions were formulated as follows: "what is the scientific evidence concerning the rule of orthodontists in the management of mandibular fractures" and "the preferential use of the direct bonding technique with orthodontic brackets rather than rigid arch bars"? Seventeen articles were included. Five articles presented the use of removable acrylic splints or functional appliances, six articles concerned the employment of cemented acrylic or rigid splints, and six articles described the management of mandibular fractures in adults and children using orthodontic brackets or mini-screws. Most of these techniques have been employed in children and growing subjects, while fewer data were available regarding conservative treatments in adults. Preliminary evidence suggests that condylar and some minor parasymphyseal fractures in children may be managed with conservative approaches. In adults, minor condylar and stable body mandibular fractures with minimal displacement have been reduced similarly. However, there are no sufficient elements that could suggest the preferential use of orthodontic brackets over rigid arch bars in adults. Further randomized and non-randomized clinical trials with long follow-ups will be needed to better define the clinical indications of the orthodontic approaches in the management of mandibular fractures based on severity, location, and age.