Comparison between different intermaxillary fixation systems in the surgical and orthopedic treatment of non-condylar mandibular fractures. Systematic review.
{"title":"Comparison between different intermaxillary fixation systems in the surgical and orthopedic treatment of non-condylar mandibular fractures. Systematic review.","authors":"M-J Mancilla, M-A Lemus, P-T Contreras","doi":"10.4317/medoral.27264","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The treatment of mandibular fractures can be orthopedic and/or surgical; in both modalities, intermaxillary fixation is a therapeutic tool that allows for the stabilization and reduction of fractures, guiding dental occlusion There are different methods of intermaxillary fixation, each with individual characteristics that provide therapeutic options for the practitioner. This study aims to perform a quantitative and qualitative comparison of different features of these intermaxillary fixation systems through a systematic review.</p><p><strong>Material and methods: </strong>A systematic review was performed, following the PRISMA guidelines. The Pubmed, SCOPUS, Web of Science and Cochrane databases were searched. Several variables were considered and are presented comprehensively in tables and figures. The initial literature search resulted in 51 articles, of which 9 met the inclusion criteria for the analysis.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Of the 51 identified articles, 28 were analyzed, with 19 excluded after full-text evaluation. Ultimately, 9 studies with 3,221 patients were included, comparing Erich arch bars (EAB), hybrid arch bars (HAB), and intermaxillary fixation screws (IMFS).</p><p><strong>Discussion: </strong>The studies focused on simple fractures with sufficient teeth for orthopedic treatment, excluding isolated maxillary fractures. Results showed differences in installation time, occlusal stability, oral hygiene, and costs, with EAB being the most expensive. Patient quality of life and complications, such as screw loss and root perforations, were also evaluated. Most studies presented a low risk of bias.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Screw-based methods like IMFS and HAB offer shorter installation times than EAB, reducing surgery duration, costs, and biosecurity risks. While EAB remains a valid option, screw methods provide advantages in time, hygiene control, and biosecurity, with the choice depending on patient needs and surgical experience.</p>","PeriodicalId":49016,"journal":{"name":"Medicina Oral Patologia Oral Y Cirugia Bucal","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Medicina Oral Patologia Oral Y Cirugia Bucal","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4317/medoral.27264","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Background: The treatment of mandibular fractures can be orthopedic and/or surgical; in both modalities, intermaxillary fixation is a therapeutic tool that allows for the stabilization and reduction of fractures, guiding dental occlusion There are different methods of intermaxillary fixation, each with individual characteristics that provide therapeutic options for the practitioner. This study aims to perform a quantitative and qualitative comparison of different features of these intermaxillary fixation systems through a systematic review.
Material and methods: A systematic review was performed, following the PRISMA guidelines. The Pubmed, SCOPUS, Web of Science and Cochrane databases were searched. Several variables were considered and are presented comprehensively in tables and figures. The initial literature search resulted in 51 articles, of which 9 met the inclusion criteria for the analysis.
Results: Of the 51 identified articles, 28 were analyzed, with 19 excluded after full-text evaluation. Ultimately, 9 studies with 3,221 patients were included, comparing Erich arch bars (EAB), hybrid arch bars (HAB), and intermaxillary fixation screws (IMFS).
Discussion: The studies focused on simple fractures with sufficient teeth for orthopedic treatment, excluding isolated maxillary fractures. Results showed differences in installation time, occlusal stability, oral hygiene, and costs, with EAB being the most expensive. Patient quality of life and complications, such as screw loss and root perforations, were also evaluated. Most studies presented a low risk of bias.
Conclusions: Screw-based methods like IMFS and HAB offer shorter installation times than EAB, reducing surgery duration, costs, and biosecurity risks. While EAB remains a valid option, screw methods provide advantages in time, hygiene control, and biosecurity, with the choice depending on patient needs and surgical experience.
背景：下颌骨骨折的治疗可以是矫形和/或手术；在这两种方式中，上颌间固定是一种治疗工具，可以稳定和减少骨折，指导牙合。上颌间固定有不同的方法，每种方法都有自己的特点，为医生提供治疗选择。本研究旨在通过系统综述，对这些颌间固定系统的不同特征进行定量和定性比较。材料和方法：按照PRISMA指南进行系统评价。检索了Pubmed、SCOPUS、Web of Science和Cochrane数据库。考虑了几个变量，并在表格和数字中全面列出。初步文献检索结果为51篇，其中9篇符合分析的纳入标准。结果：在51篇确定的文章中，有28篇被分析，其中19篇在全文评估后被排除。最终纳入了9项研究，共3221例患者，比较了Erich弓棒（EAB）、混合型弓棒（HAB）和上颌间固定螺钉（IMFS）。讨论：研究集中在单纯骨折有足够的牙齿矫形治疗，不包括孤立的上颌骨折。结果显示，在安装时间、咬合稳定性、口腔卫生和费用方面存在差异，其中EAB最昂贵。患者的生活质量和并发症，如螺钉丢失和牙根穿孔，也进行了评估。大多数研究显示偏倚风险较低。结论：螺钉方法如IMFS和HAB比EAB安装时间更短，减少了手术时间、成本和生物安全风险。虽然EAB仍然是一种有效的选择，但螺钉方法在时间、卫生控制和生物安全方面具有优势，选择取决于患者的需要和手术经验。
期刊介绍：
1. Oral Medicine and Pathology:
Clinicopathological as well as medical or surgical management aspects of
diseases affecting oral mucosa, salivary glands, maxillary bones, as well as
orofacial neurological disorders, and systemic conditions with an impact on
the oral cavity.
2. Oral Surgery:
Surgical management aspects of diseases affecting oral mucosa, salivary glands,
maxillary bones, teeth, implants, oral surgical procedures. Surgical management
of diseases affecting head and neck areas.
3. Medically compromised patients in Dentistry:
Articles discussing medical problems in Odontology will also be included, with
a special focus on the clinico-odontological management of medically compromised patients, and considerations regarding high-risk or disabled patients.
4. Implantology
5. Periodontology
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
京公网安备 11010802042870号
