The Journal of Contemporary Dental Practice

Register      Login

SEARCH WITHIN CONTENT

FIND ARTICLE

Volume / Issue

Online First

Archive
Volume  25 (2024)
Volume  24 (2023)
Volume  23 (2022)
Volume  22 (2021)
Volume  21 (2020)
Volume  20 (2019)
Volume  19 (2018)
Volume  18 (2017)
Volume  17 (2016)
Volume  16 (2015)
Volume  15 (2014)
Volume  14 (2013)
Volume  13 (2012)
Volume  12 (2011)
Volume  11 (2010)
Volume  10 (2009)
Volume  9 (2008)
Volume  8 (2007)
Volume  7 (2006)
Volume  6 (2005)
Volume  5 (2004)
Volume  4 (2003)
Volume  3 (2002)
Volume  2 (2001)
Volume  1 (1999)
Related articles

VOLUME 24 , ISSUE 12 ( December, 2023 ) > List of Articles

ORIGINAL RESEARCH

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

Merna Hosny Elhadidi, Sally Awad, Heba Abo-Elfetouh Elsheikh

Keywords : Arch bars, Closed reduction, Erich's arch bars, Mandibular fracture, Maxillomandibular fixation, Randomized clinical trial, Screw-retained arch bars

Citation Information : Elhadidi MH, Awad S, Elsheikh HA. 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.

DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10024-3613

License: CC BY-NC 4.0

Published Online: 31-01-2024

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2023; The Author(s).


Abstract

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.

HTML PDF Share
  1. Kieser J, Stephenson S, Liston P, et al. Serious facial fractures in New Zealand from 1979 to 1998. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2002;31(2):206–209. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1054/ijom.2002.0208.
  2. Lee KH. Interpersonal violence and facial fractures. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2009;67(9):1878–1883. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joms.2009.04.117.
  3. Valiati R, Ibrahim D, Abreu MER, et al. The treatment of condylar fractures: to open or not to open? A critical review of this controversy. Int J Med Sci 2008;5(6):313. DOI: https://doi.org/10.7150/ijms.5.313.
  4. Iizuka T, Lindqvist C. Rigid internal fixation of mandibular fractures: An analysis of 270 fractures treated using the AO/ASIF method. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 1992;21(2):65–69. DOI: https://doi:10.1016/s0901-5027(05)80533-8.
  5. Roccia F, Tavolaccini A, Dell'Acqua A, et al. An audit of mandibular fractures treated by intermaxillary fixation using intraoral cortical bone screws. J Craniomaxillofac Surg 2005;33(4):251–254. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcms.2005.02.005.
  6. Rai A, Datarkar A, Borle RM. Are maxillomandibular fixation screws a better option than Erich arch bars in achieving maxillomandibular fixation? A randomized clinical study. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2011;69(12):3015–3018. DOI: https://doi.10.1016/j.joms.2010.12.015.
  7. Venugopalan V, Satheesh G, Balatandayoudham A, et al. A comparative randomized prospective clinical study on modified erich arch bar with conventional erich arch bar for maxillomandibular fixation. Ann Maxillofac Surg 2020;10(2):287. DOI: https://doi.10.4103/ams.ams_20_20.
  8. Hashemi HM, Parhiz A. Complications using intermaxillary fixation screws. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2011;69(5):1411–1414. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joms.2010.05.070.
  9. Nandini G, Balakrishna R, Rao J. Self tapping screws v/s Erich arch bar for inter maxillary fixation: a comparative clinical study in the treatment of mandibular fractures. J Maxillofac 2011;10(2):127–131. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12663-011-0191-3.
  10. Nilesh K, Karandikar S. IMF screws as an alternative to arch bar fixation in management of mandibular fracture. Int J Clin Dent 2011;3(1):82–83.
  11. de Queiroz S. Modification of arch bars used for intermaxillary fixation in oral and maxillofacial surgery. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2013;42(4):481–482. DOI: https://doi.10.1016/j.ijom.2012.11.003.
  12. Sandhu YK, Padda S, Kaur T, et al. Comparison of efficacy of transalveolar screws and conventional dental wiring using Erich arch bar for maxillomandibular fixation in mandibular fractures. J Maxillofac 2018;17(2):211–217. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12663-017-1046-3.
  13. Khiabani K, Zinhaghayegh B, Amirzade-Iranaq MH. does dynamic intermaxillary fixation with elastics improve outcomes following unilateral condylar fracture? J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2021;79(1):192–199. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joms.2020.08.040.
  14. Pieper SP, Schimmele SR, Johnson JA, et al. A prospective study of the efficacy of various gloving techniques in the application of Erich arch bars. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 1995;53(10):1174–1176; discussion 1177. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/0278-2391(95)90628-2.
  15. Breivik H, Borchgrevink PC, Allen SM, et al. Assessment of pain. Br J Anaesth 2008;101(1):17–24. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/bja/aen103.
  16. Greene JG, Vermillion JR. The simplified oral hygiene index. J Am Dent Assoc 1964;68(1):7–13. DOI: https://doi.org/10.14219/jada.archive.1964.0034.
  17. Katz MI. Angle classification revisited 2: A modified Angle classification. Am J Orthodon Dentofac orthop 1992;102(3):277–284. DOI: https://doi.10.1016/S0889-5406(05)81064-9.
  18. Qureshi AA, Reddy UK, Warad N, et al. Intermaxillary fixation screws versus Erich arch bars in mandibular fractures: A comparative study and review of literature. Ann Maxillofac Surg 2016;6(1):25. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4103/2231-0746.186129.
  19. Kim YG, Yoon SH, Oh JW, et al. Comparison of intermaxillary fixation techniques for mandibular fractures with focus on patient experience. Arch Craniofac Surg 2022;23(1):23–28. DOI: https://doi.org/10.7181/acfs.2021.00549.
  20. Pathak P, Thomas S, Bhargava D, et al. A prospective comparative clinical study on modified screw retained arch bar (SRAB) and conventional Erich's arch bar (CEAB). J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2019;23:285–289. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10006-019-00766-1.
  21. Satish M, Rahman NM, Reddy VS, et al. Use of cortical bone screws in maxillofacial surgery-a prospective study. J Int Oral Health 2014;6(2):62. PMID: 24876704.
  22. Chao AH, Hulsen J. Bone-supported arch bars are associated with comparable outcomes to Erich arch bars in the treatment of mandibular fractures with intermaxillary fixation. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2015;73(2):306–313. DOI: https://doi.10.1016/j.joms.2014. 08.025.
  23. King BJ, Christensen BJ. Hybrid arch bars reduce placement time and glove perforations compared with Erich arch bars during the application of intermaxillary fixation: A randomized controlled trial. J Maxillofac Surg 2019;77(6):1228. e1221–1228. e1228. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joms.2019.01.030.
  24. Avery C, Johnson P. Surgical glove perforation and maxillofacial trauma: to plate or wire? Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg 1992;30(1):31–35. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/0266-4356(92)90133-4.
  25. Kendrick DE, Park CM, Fa JM, et al. Stryker SMARTLock hybrid maxillomandibular fixation system: Clinical application, complications, and radiographic findings. Plast Reconst Surg 2016;137(1):142e–150e. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/prs.0000000000001920.
  26. Cornelius C-P, Ehrenfeld M. The use of MMF screws: Surgical technique, indications, contraindications, and common problems in review of the literature. Craniomaxillofac Trauma Reconstr 2010;3(2):55–80. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0030-1254376.
  27. Rai AJ, Datarkar AN, Borle RM. Customised screw for intermaxillary fixation of maxillofacial injuries. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2009;47(4):325–326. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bjoms.2008. 12.009.
  28. Rothe TM, Kumar P, Shah N, et al. Comparative evaluation of efficacy of conventional arch bar, intermaxillary fixation screws, and modified arch bar for intermaxillary fixation. J Maxillofac Oral Surg 2019;18: 412–418. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12663-018-1110-7.
  29. Hamid ST, Bede SY. The use of screw retained hybrid arch bar for maxillomandibular fixation in the treatment of mandibular fractures: A comparative study. Ann Maxillofac Surg 2021;11(2):247. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4103/ams.ams_35_21.
  30. Coletti DP, Salama A, Caccamese JF Jr. Application of intermaxillary fixation screws in maxillofacial trauma. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2007;65(9):1746–1750. DOI: 10.1016/j.joms.2007.04.022.
PDF Share
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.