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

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.

Modified Eyelet Wiring: A Technical Note

Introduction

The objective of establishing intra-operative occlusion by temporary inter-maxillary fixation remains constant even with evolving principles for the treatment of facial fractures.

Material and Methods

In the novel technique, a pre-stretched 24- gauge round stainless-steel wire of six inches length is used.

Results

The novel technique is a modification of the conventional eyelet wiring, which can achieve both horizontal stabilization and maxillo-mandibular fixation.

Conclusions

We have devised a technique that overcomes the relative bulky and rigid arch bars which may not be welltolerated by the patients and the damage to the radicular structures during the placement of IMF screws.

An in vitro study in separating tensile loads during maxillo-mandibular fixation using wire and/or elastics

Intermaxillary fixation (IMF) or maxillo-mandibular fixation (MMF) is a fundamental process in stabilizing the maxilla and mandible through dental maximum intercuspation (MIP) during the management of trauma, orthognathic surgery, and reconstruction. Despite the availability of several techniques in achieving adequate maxillo-mandibular fixation, concerns have been raised regarding the sufficiency of using only latex elastics to counter displacing forces during reduction and fixation. To address this, an in vitro study was conducted to compare the efficacy of three maxillo-mandibular fixation methods: wire, elastics, and a combination of both. Custom-made models simulating dental arches were used, and a vertical separation of up to 1 mm was applied at a loading rate of 1 mm/minute using an Instron 5566 Universal Testing Machine. Tensile loads were recorded at 0.5 and 1 mm vertical separation, with each process repeated 10 times in each sample group. The average peak tensile load was then calculated. Statistical analysis using one-way ANOVA at a significance level of p<0.05 revealed significant differences between all three subject groups. The outcomes of this in vitro study suggest that the combination technique (using both wire and elastics) outperformed the individual methods in achieving robust maxillo-mandibular fixation. This positions the combination technique as the most effective among the evaluated fixation methods.

The use of clear aligners in orthognathic surgeries: a case series

Pre- and postoperative fixed orthodontic appliances are the customary and standard practice for patients with treatment planned for undergoing orthognathic surgery. Traditionally, most patients undergoing orthognathic surgeries are in their late teens. Although these patients still compose the greatest pool of the orthognathic surgery population, many patients seek orthognathic surgery later in life. This older patient population often has different concerns and goals than the younger patient population. One of these concerns is often the aesthetic appearance of fixed appliances and the time required to wear these appliances pre- and postoperatively. Today, removable orthodontic appliances consisting of a series of clear aligners have gained immense popularity due to their aesthetic appeal over traditional braces. Additional benefits of removable orthodontic appliances include improved oral hygiene leading to a decreased risk of gingivitis. Whereas clear aligner systems are commonly used in the nonsurgical orthodontic population, there has been limited use of Invisalign in the orthognathic surgery population. In this article, we present a case series of 5 patients who successfully underwent orthognathic surgery using clear aligners for pre- and postoperative orthodontic treatment.

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 Clinical Efficacy of Screw-retained Arch Bar vs Conventional Erich's Arch Bar in Maxillomandibular Fixation: A Randomized Clinical Trial

AIM

This study aimed to compare the clinical outcomes of a conventional Erich's arch bar vs a modified screw-retained arch bar in maxillomandibular fixation of mandibular fracture.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This parallel-arm randomized control trial included patients from the outpatient clinic with single favorable mandibular fractures that are indicated for closed reduction. They were subjected to maxillomandibular fixation using conventional Erich's arch bars in the control group and modified screw-retained arch bars in the study group. The outcome measures included operating time, glove perforations, postoperative pain, oral hygiene, fixation stability, occlusion, and mucosal coverage.

RESULTS

A total of 20 patients (12 males and 8 females) with a 1:1 allocation ratio were included. There was a significant statistical difference regarding operation time and number of glove perforations in favor of group B as p < 0.001, p = 0.007, respectively. There was a significant statistical difference regarding pain after 1 day (p < 0.001), 1 week (p < 0.001) in favor of group B, and at 4 weeks (p = 0.015), and 6 weeks (p = 0.002) in favor of group A. Regarding oral hygiene at 1 week (p = 0.021) and at 6 weeks (p < 0.001), there was a significant statistical difference in favor of group B. Regarding mucosal coverage at 6 weeks, there was a significant statistical difference in favor of group A (p = 0.005).

CONCLUSION

The modified screw-retained arch bar can be considered an alternative to conventional arch bar as it provided less application time and better operator safety. It also showed better patient satisfaction regarding pain and oral hygiene.

CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE

Maxillomandibular fixation with the conventional technique was modified to screw-retained arch bar which is less time-consuming and provides better patient and operator satisfaction. How to cite this article: Elhadidi MH, Awad S, Elsheikh HAE, et al. Comparison of Clinical Efficacy of Screw-retained Arch Bar vs Conventional Erich's Arch Bar in Maxillomandibular Fixation: A Randomized Clinical Trial. J Contemp Dent Pract 2023;24(12):928-935.

Erich arch bars vs intermaxillary fixation screws for mandibular fracture reduction during ORIF: a randomized clinical trial

OBJECTIVE

This randomized clinical trial aimed to compare the efficacy of Erich arch bars (EAB) and intermaxillary fixation (IMF) screws in reducing mandibular fractures during open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF).

METHODS

A total of 28 patients with mandibular fractures were randomly allocated to either the EAB group or the IMF screws group. The study evaluated various parameters including occlusal stability, complications, duration of application, oral hygiene status, quality of life, and patient characteristics.

RESULTS

The study found no significant differences in occlusal stability between the EAB and IMF screw groups. However, the application and removal times were longer for EAB compared to IMF screws. The EAB group showed a higher presence of biofilm on teeth, indicating poorer oral hygiene status compared to the IMF screws group. In terms of quality of life, patients in the EAB group reported worse results in the "handicap" domain at the 15th postoperative day. No significant differences were observed in other quality-of-life parameters. Patient characteristics were well distributed between the two groups, enhancing the reliability of the results.

CONCLUSION

Both EAB and IMF screws demonstrated comparable occlusal stability for minimally displaced mandibular fractures. However, IMF screws offered advantages such as shorter application and removal times, better oral hygiene maintenance, and potentially improved quality of life in the "handicap" domain. Further studies with larger sample sizes are necessary to validate these findings and explore the stability of IMF methods in cases requiring postoperative malocclusion correction or prolonged IMF.

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.

The Assessment of Intermaxillary Fixation and Open Reduction Using Skeletal Anchorage System Compared With Arch Bar in Mandible Fracture Based on CT Image

BACKGROUND

There are many different techniques to achieve intermaxillary fixation (IMF) for open reduction of mandible fractures. The arch bar has long been used as the gold standard of IMF to assist open reduction. However, owing to its long operating time, risk of needle stick injury, and gingival trauma, surgeons looked into different treatment options for IMF, such as the skeletal anchorage system (SAS). Therefore, this study aimed to compare the stability between IMF with arch bar and IMF with SAS based on computed tomography image.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

In this retrospective study, postoperative computed tomography and panoramic radiographs were taken 1 week and 6 months after surgery, respectively. The treatment of mandibular fractures using IMF with arch bar and SAS were compared by evaluating changes in the dental midlines and condyle positions. Thirty patients with mandibular fractures were enrolled into 2 groups-IMF with arch bar and IMF with SAS.

RESULTS

The arch bar showed slightly more deviation in dental midline. In SAS, the condyle moved more medially compared with the arch bar.

CONCLUSIONS

Skeletal anchorage system could be used for IMF with reliable stability in mandible fracture. There were no significant differences in the treatment outcome between the 2 groups.

Compare the Efficacy of Open Reduction and Internal Fixation of Mandibular Fractures With and Without Use of Intra-Operative Inter-Maxillary Fixation

Mandible fractures are regularly encountered by maxillofacial surgeons and various treatment protocols are available for the management of these fractures. The aim of study compares the efficacy of open reduction and internal fixation of mandibular fractures with and without use of intra-operative inter-maxillary fixation. Twenty patients between age group ranging l8-65 years who reported with single mandibular fracture in Dental college in India, during Oct 2012-March 2015 were the study subjects. These patients were divided into two groups. In one group fracture reduction was done by using inter-maxillary fixation and miniplate fixation was done. In other group fracture reduction was done manually and then fractured fragments were held in position by the assistant and miniplate fixation was done. Post-operatively patients were evaluated for occlusion, bone alignment and soft tissue/hard tissue infection at 1st, 4th, 8th, 12th weeks in both the groups. Statistics done by using Spearman's Rank correlation coefficient and Mann-Whitney U test. It was observed thatthere was no statistically significant difference seen in both the groups in terms of post-operative occlusion, radiological alignment and soft/hard tissue infection. Statistically significant difference was seen when the mean operating time was compared. The Group A showed mean difference of 35.50 min more time than Group B. The results of our study suggested that, use of intra-operative IMF does not show any advantages in terms of post-operative occlusion, bone alignment and soft/hard tissue infection. We have concluded from the study that the increased intra-operative time for the placement of IMF increases the cost of the surgery in regard to equipment and theatre time. There is no benefit in terms of radiographic and clinical outcome. Hence use of intra-operative IMF can be avoided for ORIF of single mandibular fracture.

Focus on the use of maxillomandibular fixation in mandibular fracture oseosynthesis

OBJECTIVES

The objective of this study was to evaluate the efficiency of three methods of isolated mandibular fracture intraoperative reduction.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This 6-year retrospective study included patients with isolated extra-articular mandibular fractures who would benefit from osteosynthesis. The endpoint was postoperative occlusion according to the type of intraoperative immobilization: screws, arch, or manual reduction.

RESULTS

A total of 145 patients were included, with 233 fractures. Forty-five patients underwent manual reduction without maxillo-mandibular fixation (MMF), 51 MMF with screws, and 49 MMF with arch, with 11.1%, 5.9% and 4.1% of patients in these groups experiencing postoperative malocclusion, respectively. The overall malocclusion rate was 6.9%. There was no significant difference among the 3 methods according to univariate statistical analysis (p = 0.42) or after comparing MMF (grouping screws and arches) to manual reduction without MMF (p = 0.29).

CONCLUSION

This study did not show a significant difference between the different methods of intraoperative reduction of isolated extra-articular mandibular fractures, even though intraoperative MMF was much more commonly used for complex fractures. However, there is a non-significant tendency to get a better post-operative occlusal result with MMF, which remains the reference traitement. Intraoperative manual reduction without MMF may be used within trained teams in some instances.

Comparison of different treatment techniques in the mandibular condyle fracture

BACKGROUND

Mandibular condyle fractures can be treated conservatively by intermaxillary fixation (IMF) or by open reposition and internal fixation. Although many studies have discussed for the optimal treatment method, the issue remains controversial. In this study, we aimed to compare conservative techniques in the mandibular condyle fractures.

METHODS

Twenty four unilateral condyle fracture patients aged between 18 and 48 years were treated according to one of three different modalities. Bracketing, arch bar or mini screw was applied to all non-surgery patients to obtain IMF. Eight patients were treated with only IMF meanwhile eleven patients were treated with one or double-sided amplifier occlusal splint according to the status of fractured segments, in addition to IMF. Remaining five patients have undergone open reduction and fractured segments immobilized with mini plates. Pre- and post-operative images were recorded with a computerized tomography device. Clinical and radiological examinations were performed by orthodontists and surgeons at baseline and at 6 months of treatment.

RESULTS

The condyle lengths of the patients with unilateral fracture after recovery were compared with the unaffected side. The length between the most protruding point of the condyle and the mandible was measured and the length difference was only 5.94 mm in patients who were treated by IMF. The length difference of patients who used brackets and splints was 3.36 mm (p<0.05). The length difference of patients who were repaired by plate screws was 1.80 mm (p>0.05). However, there was no statistically significant difference (p>0.05) between the groups in the IMF, occlusal splint and IMF and mini plate groups, between the trauma side and the opposite side. None of the patients developed ankylosis, open mouth, limitation of mouth opening, facial asymmetry, laterognathia, and retrognathia. The occlusion of the patients who were not known to have pre-trauma occlusions were directed, repositioned and provided an appropriate occlusion.

CONCLUSION

The use of IMF with an occlusal splint is a more conservative and acceptable treatment modality than open reduction in selected cases.

Efficacy of locking miniplates in managing mandibular fractures without intermaxillary fixation

Background:

Aims:

Materials and Methods:

Results:

Conclusion:

Is the Use of Intermaxillary Fixation Screws an Alternative to Erich Arch Bars for Maxillomandibular Fixation During Management of Maxillofacial Fractures? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Study Design

Systematic review and meta-analysis.

Objective

Maxillomandibular fixation (MMF) is a step of paramount importance during the management of maxillofacial trauma. Erich arch bars are being used for this purpose for decades but with advances in maxillofacial trauma management, intermaxillary fixation screws came into existence and are being used routinely. The present study was designed to identify if the intermaxillary fixation screws are really an alternative to Erich arch bars for management of maxillofacial trauma.

Methodology

An exhaustive literature search was conducted in May 2020 on various electronic databases and studies comparing Erich arch bars and intermaxillary fixation screws were recruited for the analysis. Random-effects model with Mantel Haenszel statistics was used to analyze oral hygiene and duration of achieving MMF.

Results

A total of 96 studies were identified, out of which 8 studies were included in the meta-analysis. There was no statistically significant difference in oral hygiene status of the patients in both the groups. Intermaxillary fixations screws required statistically significantly less time in achieving MMF. Needle stick injury was prominently seen with the use of Erich arch bar whereas other complications like mucosal coverage, root injury, screw loosening and screw fracture makes the use of intermaxillary fixation screws questionable.

Conclusion

The present meta-analysis suggests that there is not enough evidence to recommend the use of intermaxillary fixation screws as an alternative to Erich arch bars. Further research with large sample size, high quality evidence and better methodology is recommended in this direction.

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

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

The use of screw retained hybrid arch bar for maxillomandibular fixation in the treatment of mandibular fractures: A comparative study

Introduction:

The use of screw-retained hybrid arch bars (HABs) is a relatively recent development in the treatment of mandibular fractures. The purpose of this study is to compare the clinical outcome between HAB and the conventional Erich arch bar (EAB) in the closed treatment of mandibular fractures.

Materials and Methods:

This study included 18 patients who were treated for mandibular fractures with maxillomandibular fixation (MMF), patients were randomly assigned into a control group (n = 10) in which EAB was used and study group (n = 8) in which HAB was used. The outcome variables were time required for application and removal, gingival inflammation scores, postoperative complications, and incidence of wire-stick injury or gloves perforation. The groups were compared using unpaired t-test, Mann–Whitney test, Chi-square test, or Fisher test. The differences were considered significant at P < 0.05.

Results:

The mean application time was significantly more in EAB than HAB (61.6 ± 11.4 vs. 41.6 ± 6 min, respectively). The mean time of removal for EAB was significantly less than HAB (11.1 ± 2 vs. 14.2 ± 3 min, respectively). There was nonsignificant difference in gingival inflammation between the groups. No major complications were recorded. Screw loosening and mucosal overgrowth were recorded in 12.5% and 31.2% of the screws, respectively, in HAB group. The incidence of gloves tear in EAB group was 70%.

Discussion:

HAB can be used as an alternative to EAB for MMF in patients with mandibular fracture, it requires less time for application and provides more safety for the surgeons.

A Comparative Randomized Prospective Clinical Study on Modified Erich Arch Bar with Conventional Erich Arch Bar for Maxillomandibular Fixation

Introduction

Erich arch bar used for maxillomandibular fixation (MMF) since decades has several disadvantages such as risks of injury, additional operating room time, and gingival trauma. To overcome these downsides, modified Erich arch bar was introduced; however, there is not much available literature, indicating the efficacy of modified Erich arch bar over that of conventional arch bar wire. Therefore, the present study focuses on comparing efficiency of modified arch bar with conventional arch bar.

Materials and Methods

This comparative randomized study was conducted on 32 patients that required MMF and were divided into Group A patients who received intermaxillary fixation (IMF) with modified Erich arch bars and Group B patients with conventional Erich arch bars. The parameters recorded were average surgical time required, wire prick injuries, IMF stability, occlusal stability, screw loosening, oral hygiene status, and vitality response of the teeth. The variables were statistically analyzed using Student's t-test and Wilcoxon signed-rank test.

Results

The wire prick injury, intraoperative time noted in Group A was significantly reduced in comparison to Group B (P < 0.0001). Debris indices were significantly good in Group A in comparison to Group B (P < 0.0001). Nonvitality response of tooth was significantly more in Group B than in Group A patients (P < 0.05).

Discussion

The efficiency of modified Erich arch bar group was superior to the conventional arch bar with very limited restrictions.

Comparison between Erich arch bars and intermaxillary screws in maxillofacial fractures involving the dental occlusion: a meta-analysis

This systematic review aimed to compare the Erich arch bars (EABs) with intermaxillary fixation (IMF) screws in maxillofacial fractures involving dental occlusion on perioperative parameters. Four electronic databases were searched: MedLine (Pubmed), Web of Science, VHL, and Cochrane Library. Inclusion criteria comprised clinical trials comparing the two IMF methods, assessing at least one of the outcomes: occlusal stability, oral hygiene, quality of life, time to apply and remove IMF appliances, and complications. Risk of bias was evaluated through the Cochrane risk of bias tool. Fifteen papers were included in the qualitative analysis and 12 of those in the meta-analysis. Times for EABs application (mean difference (MD) 46.83; 95% confidence interval (CI): 30.63-63.02) and removal (MD 22.89; 95% CI 14.61-31.17) were longer compared with IMF screws. There is higher risk of glove perforation (risk ratio (RR) 3.81; 95% CI 2.41-6.04) and lower risk of iatrogenic injuries (RR 0.21; 95% CI 0.09-0.48) when placing EABs compared with IMF screws. No significant differences in plaque index were found (MD 1.07; 95% CI -0.17 to 2.31). The quality of this evidence ranged from very low to low and was mainly compromised by risk of bias assessment. Further studies are necessary to evaluate transurgical IMF stability and postoperative occlusal quality and quality of life when comparing EABs with IMF screws.

Occlusal Instability Results in Increased Complication Rates After Treatment of Mandibular Fractures

PURPOSE

It is important to understand the factors that can increase the incidence of complications after mandibular fracture (MF) treatment. The objective of the present study was to investigate whether occlusal stability influences the occurrence of postoperative complications in MFs treated with internal rigid fixation.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

We performed a prospective cohort study of patients treated for MF by osteosynthesis with plate and screw fixation. The primary predictor variable was the occlusal stability (yes vs no). Occlusion was scored as stable (group 1) if the patients had all their teeth and no free ends in either dental arch. Occlusion was coded as unstable (group 2) if the patients were partially edentulous with free ends in either dental arch or had edentulism involving more than 6 dental elements. The primary outcome variable was postoperative complication (yes vs no). The secondary outcome variables were the osteosynthesis system used (2.0 or 2.4 mm), local factors, age, and gender. Statistical analysis was performed using the χ² statistical test at 5% significance.

RESULTS

Of 115 patients with 121 MFs, 73 (63.48%) had stable occlusion (group 1) and 42 (36.52%) had unstable occlusion (group 2). The mean age was 34.11 years, and 71.3% were men. The postoperative complication rate was 8.70% (10 patients). Of the 10 patients with complications, 3 (2.6%) were in group 1 and 7 (6.1%) were in group 2 (P = .021 and P < .05, respectively). The 2.0-mm system was used in 107 cases (93%). All the complications were associated with use of the 2.0-mm osteosynthesis plates, occurring in 3 of 69 patients in group 1 (4.34%) and 7 of 38 patients in group 2 (18.42%; P = .032 and P < .05, respectively). The greatest number of complications was associated with unilateral MF (9 of 109). The occurrence of postoperative complications in angle and symphysis/parasymphysis fracture sites was equal.

CONCLUSIONS

The results of the present study suggest that unstable occlusion could increase the rate of postoperative complications in MFs treated with plates and screws. Future studies are required with occlusal stability included as a variable.

Comparing Outcomes in Orthognathic Surgery Using Clear Aligners Versus Conventional Fixed Appliances

PURPOSE

Orthognathic surgery for dentofacial deformities is typically preceded and followed by orthodontic treatment. Traditionally, orthodontic hardware is secured to the dentition to allow dental movement and stabilization. Clear-aligner therapy (eg, Invisalign) provides an aesthetic alternative, consisting of a series of transparent trays. Its use has not been described in complex triple-jaw orthognathic surgery. The purpose of this study is to evaluate perioperative outcomes and 3-dimensionally quantify postoperative edema in Invisalign patients undergoing triple-jaw orthognathic procedures, comparing this to patients treated with conventional fixed appliances. The surgical approach to patients with clear-aligners is also outlined.

METHODS

The authors conducted a retrospective chart review and 3-dimensional morphometric study of Invisalign patients undergoing triple-jaw surgery (LeFort I osteotomy, bilateral sagittal split osteotomy, and genioplasty). An identical assessment of demographically matched patients treated with conventional fixed appliances was performed and compared with the Invisalign group.

RESULTS

Thirty-three patients, with a mean age of 19.99 years, were included: 13 with Invisalign and 20 with conventional fixed appliances. No significant difference was observed in operating time, concurrent extraction of teeth, fat grafting, duration of hospital stay, diet advancement, and use of narcotic analgesics between the 2 groups. Nine patients had sufficient 3-dimensional images for volumetric analysis (4 with Invisalign and 5 with conventional fixed appliances). Postoperative edema was not significantly different (P = 0.712) when comparing conventional fixed appliances (44.29 ± 23.16 cm) to Invisalign (37.36 ± 31.19 cm).

CONCLUSION

The present study demonstrates that complex multiple-jaw orthognathic procedures can be successfully performed in Invisalign patients. Perioperative and short-term clinical outcomes are not compromised.

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.

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.

FAMI Screws for Mandibulo-Maxillary fixation in mandibular fracture treatment - Clinico-radiological evaluation

Mandibulo-maxillary fixation (MMF) is indispensable for mandibular fracture treatment. Various means for MMF have been proposed, of which arch bars are widely considered to be the mainstay. However, disadvantages to this method have initiated a quest for an alternative, leading to the introduction of MMF screws. MMF screws have frequently been criticized for poor stability of fracture sites, root damage, hardware failure, and nerve damage. We retrospectively evaluate the FAMI (Fixation and Adaptation in Mandibular Injuries) screw in mandibular fracture treatment by scanning for clinically and radiologically visible complications. In total, 534 FAMI screws were used in the successful treatment of 96 males and 34 females. Condylar fractures were most commonly encountered, representing 120 of 241 fracture sites. 15 general fracture-related complications occurred, with the most common being nerve function impairment (3.8%) and postoperative malocclusion (4.6%). In nine cases (7%), clinically visible FAMI-screw-related complications occurred, with the most prevalent being screw loosening (2.3%) and mucosal signs of inflammation (3.1%). Duration of FAMI screws was associated with the occurrence of clinically visible complications (p = 0.042). Radiologically, clinically invisible dental hard tissue damage was noted in 21 individuals (16%). Therefore, FAMI screws seem to be a reliable and safe method for mandibulo-maxillary fixation.

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.

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.

A Technique for Reduction of Edentulous Fractures Using Dentures and SMARTLock Hybrid Fixation System

Establishing anatomic reduction of an edentulous mandible fracture is a frequently acknowledged challenge in craniomaxillofacial trauma surgery. In this study, we report a novel method for the reduction of the edentulous mandible fracture, via fabrication of modified Gunning splints using existing dentures and SMARTLock hybrid arch bars. This technique dramatically simplifies the application of an arch bar to dentures, obviates the need for the fabrication of impressions and custom splints, and eliminates the lag time associated with the creation of splints. Furthermore, this method may be used with or without adjunctive rigid internal fixation. The technique described herein of creating Gunning splints with SMARTLock hybrid arch bars provides surgeons with a simple, rapid, single-stage solution for reduction of mandibular fractures in the edentulous patient.

Dental occlusion ties: A rapid, safe, and non-invasive maxillo-mandibular fixation technology

Objectives

For decades, Erich arch bars have been a standard in establishing maxillo‐mandibular fixation (MMF). While reliable, the approach risks sharps injury, consumes operating room time, and inflicts gingival trauma. Newer technologies including screw‐based techniques and “hybrid” techniques have improved MMF by reducing sharps injuries and operating room time, but risk injury to tooth roots, nerves, and gingiva. This study aims to establish the application, strengths, and limitations of dental occlusion ties as a novel alternative in maxillo‐mandibular fixation.

Study Design

Prospective, non‐blinded, human feasibility clinical trial.

Materials and Methods

An iterative prototyping process was used to invent dental occlusion ties (brand name: Minne Ties). Development included 3D printing, cadaver prototype testing, human apical embrasure measurement, and ultimately non‐significant risk human clinical trial testing. In the IRB‐approved feasibility clinical trial, the devices were applied to mandible and maxilla fracture candidates with fractures amenable to intra‐operative MMF with open reduction with internal fixation. The ties were removed prior to extubation. Pre‐teens, comminuted fracture patients, and patients requiring post‐operative MMF were excluded.

Results

Manufactured, sterile prototypes secured MMF successfully in management of unilateral and bilateral mandible and maxilla fractures. All patients reported correction of pre‐operative malocclusion. Application times were typically 12–15 minutes for a single surgeon to achieve MMF. Patients incurred negligible gingival trauma from the technology as the ties require no tissue penetration for application.

Conclusions

Dental occlusion ties offer a non‐invasive solution featuring operating room efficiency, minimized sharps risk, and less bony and soft tissue trauma than current commercialized solutions.

Level of Evidence

Therapeutic, IV