{"title":"“Comparison among 3 maxillomandibular fixation techniques for management of mandibular fractures – A prospective randomized study”","authors":"Devender Tigraniya, Ankita Dahiya, Virendra Singh, Amrish Bhagol, Rajiv Tanwar, Nilesh Bagde","doi":"10.1016/j.jobcr.2025.06.020","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><div>The Erich arch bar has been a traditional method for maxillomandibular fixation (MMF) in the closed management of mandibular fractures, but it presents significant disadvantages, including prolonged placement time, increased risk of operator injury, and compromised oral hygiene. To address these challenges, alternative methods such as IMF screws and hybrid arch bars have been introduced.</div></div><div><h3>Purpose</h3><div>This study aimed to compare the efficacy, advantages, disadvantages, and potential complications of three MMF techniques, IMF screws, hybrid arch bars, and Erich arch bars in the management of mandibular fractures.</div></div><div><h3>Study design</h3><div>This study follows the <strong>CONSORT</strong> guidelines for randomized clinical trials. A total of 45 patients with mandibular fractures were <strong>randomized</strong> into three equal groups: <strong>Group A (IMF screws), Group B (Hybrid arch bars), and Group C (Erich arch bars).</strong> Randomization was performed using a computer-generated sequence, with <strong>allocation concealment</strong> achieved through sealed opaque envelopes. <strong>Blinding was not feasible due to the nature of the interventions.</strong></div><div>The <strong>primary outcome variables</strong> included <strong>occlusal assessment and fracture reduction. Secondary outcomes</strong> included the <strong>time required for placement and removal of MMF devices, postoperative pain (VAS score), and operator-related complications such as glove perforation.</strong></div><div>Co-variates-Age, site of mandible fracture & multiple fracture of mandible.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>All 45 patients were included in the final analysis. <strong>Occlusion was successfully achieved in all patients except one (6.7 %) in the IMF screw group.</strong> The mean time for MMF placement and removal was highest in the Erich arch bar group, followed by the hybrid arch bar group, and was lowest in the IMF screw group (p < 0.001). Glove perforation occurred in 6 Erich arch bar group subjects during placement. The mean VAS pain score was highest in the Erich arch bar group at the time of placement, at 24 h, and at 1 week (p = 0.002, 0.004, and 0.018, respectively).</div></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><div>and Relevance: This study highlights that IMF screws offer a <strong>more efficient, safer, and less painful alternative</strong> for MMF compared to Erich and hybrid arch bars. Considering the shorter procedural time, reduced operator risk, and better patient comfort, <strong>IMF screws appear to be the preferred choice for the closed management of minimally to moderately displaced isolated mandibular fractures.</strong></div></div>","PeriodicalId":16609,"journal":{"name":"Journal of oral biology and craniofacial research","volume":"15 5","pages":"Pages 992-1000"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-07-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of oral biology and craniofacial research","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2212426825001393","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Background
The Erich arch bar has been a traditional method for maxillomandibular fixation (MMF) in the closed management of mandibular fractures, but it presents significant disadvantages, including prolonged placement time, increased risk of operator injury, and compromised oral hygiene. To address these challenges, alternative methods such as IMF screws and hybrid arch bars have been introduced.
Purpose
This study aimed to compare the efficacy, advantages, disadvantages, and potential complications of three MMF techniques, IMF screws, hybrid arch bars, and Erich arch bars in the management of mandibular fractures.
Study design
This study follows the CONSORT guidelines for randomized clinical trials. A total of 45 patients with mandibular fractures were randomized into three equal groups: Group A (IMF screws), Group B (Hybrid arch bars), and Group C (Erich arch bars). Randomization was performed using a computer-generated sequence, with allocation concealment achieved through sealed opaque envelopes. Blinding was not feasible due to the nature of the interventions.
The primary outcome variables included occlusal assessment and fracture reduction. Secondary outcomes included the time required for placement and removal of MMF devices, postoperative pain (VAS score), and operator-related complications such as glove perforation.
Co-variates-Age, site of mandible fracture & multiple fracture of mandible.
Results
All 45 patients were included in the final analysis. Occlusion was successfully achieved in all patients except one (6.7 %) in the IMF screw group. The mean time for MMF placement and removal was highest in the Erich arch bar group, followed by the hybrid arch bar group, and was lowest in the IMF screw group (p < 0.001). Glove perforation occurred in 6 Erich arch bar group subjects during placement. The mean VAS pain score was highest in the Erich arch bar group at the time of placement, at 24 h, and at 1 week (p = 0.002, 0.004, and 0.018, respectively).
Conclusion
and Relevance: This study highlights that IMF screws offer a more efficient, safer, and less painful alternative for MMF compared to Erich and hybrid arch bars. Considering the shorter procedural time, reduced operator risk, and better patient comfort, IMF screws appear to be the preferred choice for the closed management of minimally to moderately displaced isolated mandibular fractures.
期刊介绍:
Journal of Oral Biology and Craniofacial Research (JOBCR)is the official journal of the Craniofacial Research Foundation (CRF). The journal aims to provide a common platform for both clinical and translational research and to promote interdisciplinary sciences in craniofacial region. JOBCR publishes content that includes diseases, injuries and defects in the head, neck, face, jaws and the hard and soft tissues of the mouth and jaws and face region; diagnosis and medical management of diseases specific to the orofacial tissues and of oral manifestations of systemic diseases; studies on identifying populations at risk of oral disease or in need of specific care, and comparing regional, environmental, social, and access similarities and differences in dental care between populations; diseases of the mouth and related structures like salivary glands, temporomandibular joints, facial muscles and perioral skin; biomedical engineering, tissue engineering and stem cells. The journal publishes reviews, commentaries, peer-reviewed original research articles, short communication, and case reports.