Use of Arch Bars versus IMF-Screws in Maxillomandibular Fixation of Mandibular Fractures: A Randomised Prospective Study.

Mukhtar Modibbo Ahmad, Olutayo James, Abubakar Farate, Hector Oladapo Olasoji, Ibrahim Kayode Suleiman, Mohammed Adam Sheikh Abdullahi, Farouk Kabir Umar
{"title":"Use of Arch Bars versus IMF-Screws in Maxillomandibular Fixation of Mandibular Fractures: A Randomised Prospective Study.","authors":"Mukhtar Modibbo Ahmad, Olutayo James, Abubakar Farate, Hector Oladapo Olasoji, Ibrahim Kayode Suleiman, Mohammed Adam Sheikh Abdullahi, Farouk Kabir Umar","doi":"10.4103/jwas.jwas_145_24","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Traditionally, arch bars are used for mandibulomaxillary fixation (MMF) following mandibular fractures. Intermaxillary fixation screws (IMFS) are a suitable alternative to mitigate the drawbacks of arch bar fixation.</p><p><strong>Aims and objectives: </strong>We compared the use of arch bars versus IMFS for treatment of mandibular fractures including evaluation of sonographic findings and the patients' quality of Life (QoL).</p><p><strong>Study design: </strong>This is a randomised prospective study.</p><p><strong>Setting: </strong>The study was conducted at the Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, University of Maiduguri Teaching Hospital.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>Fifty patients with mandibular fractures were recruited and randomly divided into two groups, 25 each in the arch bars and IMFS treatment groups. The parameters evaluated were as follows: mouth opening, malocclusion, pain, fracture healing using an ultrasound scanner, operating time, wire-prick injuries, oral hygiene, and QoL.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>There was a significantly higher pain score by the 3<sup>rd</sup> and 6<sup>th</sup> postoperative weeks (<i>P</i> = 0.015 and <i>P</i> = 0.003, respectively) and shorter operating time (<i>P</i> < 0.001) in the IMFS group, while a notable higher wire-prick injury (<i>P</i> < 0.001) and poor oral hygiene (<i>P</i> = 0.25) were observed in the arch bar group. An ultrasound scan at 6 postoperative weeks showed complete hyperechoic bridging callus in (61.5%) the arch bar group and (50%) in the IMF screw group, with no statistically significant difference. Regarding the QoL, patients treated with arch bars had more difficulty in continuing with their normal diet and indicated \"they will not undergo the same treatment again.\" On the other hand, IMFS patients had significantly isolated themselves because of feelings of bad mood, and their sleep and speech patterns were significantly affected.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Although some similarities were observed in both groups, this study observed that IMFS addressed some of the limitations associated with arch bars such as prolonged operative time, wire-prick injury, and poor oral hygiene. Therefore IMFS is relatively safer and can be used for long-time MMF.</p><p><strong>Trial registration number: </strong>PACTR202408851121914.</p><p><strong>Date of registration: </strong>04 July 2024, \"retrospectively registered.\"</p><p><strong>Clinical trial registry: </strong>Pan African clinical trials registry.</p>","PeriodicalId":73993,"journal":{"name":"Journal of the West African College of Surgeons","volume":"15 4","pages":"471-480"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12443450/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of the West African College of Surgeons","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4103/jwas.jwas_145_24","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/4/5 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Traditionally, arch bars are used for mandibulomaxillary fixation (MMF) following mandibular fractures. Intermaxillary fixation screws (IMFS) are a suitable alternative to mitigate the drawbacks of arch bar fixation.

Aims and objectives: We compared the use of arch bars versus IMFS for treatment of mandibular fractures including evaluation of sonographic findings and the patients' quality of Life (QoL).

Study design: This is a randomised prospective study.

Setting: The study was conducted at the Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, University of Maiduguri Teaching Hospital.

Materials and methods: Fifty patients with mandibular fractures were recruited and randomly divided into two groups, 25 each in the arch bars and IMFS treatment groups. The parameters evaluated were as follows: mouth opening, malocclusion, pain, fracture healing using an ultrasound scanner, operating time, wire-prick injuries, oral hygiene, and QoL.

Results: There was a significantly higher pain score by the 3rd and 6th postoperative weeks (P = 0.015 and P = 0.003, respectively) and shorter operating time (P < 0.001) in the IMFS group, while a notable higher wire-prick injury (P < 0.001) and poor oral hygiene (P = 0.25) were observed in the arch bar group. An ultrasound scan at 6 postoperative weeks showed complete hyperechoic bridging callus in (61.5%) the arch bar group and (50%) in the IMF screw group, with no statistically significant difference. Regarding the QoL, patients treated with arch bars had more difficulty in continuing with their normal diet and indicated "they will not undergo the same treatment again." On the other hand, IMFS patients had significantly isolated themselves because of feelings of bad mood, and their sleep and speech patterns were significantly affected.

Conclusions: Although some similarities were observed in both groups, this study observed that IMFS addressed some of the limitations associated with arch bars such as prolonged operative time, wire-prick injury, and poor oral hygiene. Therefore IMFS is relatively safer and can be used for long-time MMF.

Trial registration number: PACTR202408851121914.

Date of registration: 04 July 2024, "retrospectively registered."

Clinical trial registry: Pan African clinical trials registry.

弓形棒与imf螺钉在上颌下颌骨折固定中的应用:一项随机前瞻性研究。
背景:传统上,弓棒用于下颌骨骨折后的下颌颌骨固定(MMF)。上颌间固定螺钉(IMFS)是一种合适的替代方案,以减轻弓杆固定的缺点。目的和目的:我们比较了弓棒与IMFS在治疗下颌骨骨折中的应用,包括超声检查结果和患者生活质量(QoL)的评估。研究设计:这是一项随机前瞻性研究。环境:研究在迈杜古里大学教学医院口腔颌面外科进行。材料与方法:选取50例下颌骨骨折患者,随机分为两组,弓棒组和IMFS组各25例。评估的参数如下:张口、错牙合、疼痛、超声扫描骨折愈合、手术时间、刺丝损伤、口腔卫生和生活质量。结果:IMFS组患者术后第3周、第6周疼痛评分明显高于IMFS组(P = 0.015、P = 0.003),手术时间明显短于IMFS组(P < 0.001),而弓棒组患者刺丝损伤明显高于IMFS组(P < 0.001),口腔卫生状况明显差于IMFS组(P = 0.25)。术后6周超声扫描显示,弓形棒组(61.5%)和IMF螺钉组(50%)出现完全高回声桥式骨痂,差异无统计学意义。在生活质量方面,接受弓棒治疗的患者更难继续正常饮食,并表示“他们不会再接受同样的治疗”。另一方面,IMFS患者由于心情不好而明显孤立自己,睡眠和言语模式受到明显影响。结论:虽然在两组中观察到一些相似之处,但本研究发现,IMFS解决了与弓棒相关的一些局限性,如延长手术时间、刺丝损伤和口腔卫生差。因此,IMFS相对安全,可用于长时间的MMF。试验注册号:PACTR202408851121914。注册日期:2024年7月4日,“回顾性注册”。临床试验注册:泛非临床试验注册。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信