Comparative Evaluation of Efficacy of Conventional Arch Bar, Intermaxillary Fixation Screws, and Modified Arch Bar for Intermaxillary Fixation

Rothe, Tushar Manohar; Kumar, Prachur; Shah, Nehal; Shah, Rakesh; Mahajan, Amit; Kumar, Ananth

doi:10.1007/s12663-018-1110-7

Cited by 14 publications

(14 citation statements)

References 17 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…A total of 6 studies have reported about the various complications in both the groups (Table 4). Needle stick injury or glove perforation was reported by 5 studies and was seen in Arch Bar group in all the studies, 12,13,27,29,30 whereas only 2 studies had needle stick injuries or glove perforations in IMF screw group. 27,30 This data suggests that there is a high risk of communication of blood borne diseases when arch bar is used for IMF.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 93%

“…27,30 This data suggests that there is a high risk of communication of blood borne diseases when arch bar is used for IMF. On the contrary, 4 studies reported mucosal coverage 12,28 –30 and 5 studies reported tooth mobility with the use of IMF screws. 13,27 –30 These complications were not seen when arch bar was used; only 2 teeth crowns were damaged while using arch bar.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…On the contrary, 4 studies reported mucosal coverage 12,28 –30 and 5 studies reported tooth mobility with the use of IMF screws. 13,27 –30 These complications were not seen when arch bar was used; only 2 teeth crowns were damaged while using arch bar. 30 Three studies reported IMF screw loosening 12,28,29 and 2 studies reported IMF screw fracture.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…All the included studies were assessed for their quality by 2 independent reviewers using Cochrane’s risk of bias assessment tool. Out of the 8 included studies, 2 studies had low risk of bias in all the 7 domains 29,30 whereas the other 6 studies showed a high risk of bias. 12,13,26 –28,31 These studies did not provide adequate information on the procedure on randomization, moreover they failed to describe allocation concealment completely.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

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

Jain¹,

Rai

2020

Craniomaxillofacial Trauma & Reconstruction

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 93%

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

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

Jain¹,

Rai

2020

Craniomaxillofacial Trauma & Reconstruction

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Studies comparing IMF achieved with arch bars to screws have shown that IMF screws have led to reductions in operative times [9][10][11] and incidence of glove perforation. 12 However, the incorrect placement of IMF screws may result in damage to dental roots 4 and nerve injury.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Computer Assisted Guided Placement of IMF Screws in Craniomaxillofacial Trauma: An Evolving Technique

Muhammad

2021

FACE

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Intermaxillary fixation (IMF) screws have been introduced into maxillofacial trauma practice to reduce operation time and the complications associated with the placement of wire ligatures around teeth. Wires continue to be used to secure arch bars to teeth, form eyelets and long ligatures prior to putting a patient into maxillomandibular fixation (MMF). The application of wires to dental arches may result in sharp injuries to the operator, whereas injury to roots and nerves may arise from incorrect positioning of IMF screws in the jaws. The purpose of this technical note is to demonstrate how 3D patient specific (PS) surgical guides can be planned and fabricated to assist in the safe placement of IMF screws in the maxilla and mandible. It is proposed that PS IMF screw guides can be further developed to incorporate removable spoons and semi-circular access ports that not only facilitate safe screw placement but allow the guide to remain in position until all screw are secured. The potential benefits of PS IMF surgical guides include diminished risk of injury to facial structures and reduced operation time. The technique also lends itself to the placement of IMF screws via a robotic arm contributing to a safer operating environment for the maxillofacial surgery team.

show abstract

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

Fernandes,

Al-Moraissi,

Galvão

et al. 2023

Clin Oral Invest

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This randomized clinical trial aimed to compare the e cacy of Erich Arch Bars (EAB) and Intermaxillary Fixation (IMF) Screws in reducing mandibular fractures during Open Reduction and Internal Fixation (ORIF). Material and MethodsA 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. ResultsThe study found no signi cant differences in occlusal stability between the EAB and IMF screws groups.However, the application and removal times were longer for EAB compared to IMF screws. The EAB group showed a higher presence of bio lm 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 signi cant differences were observed in other quality of life parameters. Patient characteristics were well-distributed between the two groups, enhancing the reliability of the results. ConclusionBoth 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 ndings and explore the stability of IMF methods in cases requiring postoperative malocclusion correction or prolonged IMF.

show abstract

Comparative Evaluation of Efficacy of Conventional Arch Bar, Intermaxillary Fixation Screws, and Modified Arch Bar for Intermaxillary Fixation

Cited by 14 publications

References 17 publications

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

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

Computer Assisted Guided Placement of IMF Screws in Craniomaxillofacial Trauma: An Evolving Technique

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

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About