An Alternative to Arch-Bar Maxillomandibular Fixation

1997 ◽  
Vol 99 (6) ◽  
pp. 1758-1759 ◽  
Author(s):  
Vasiliki Karlis ◽  
Robert Glickman
Keyword(s):  
Maxillomandibular Fixation ◽  
Arch Bar

scholarly journals Comparison of Efficacy of Transalveolar Screws and Conventional Dental Wiring Using Erich Arch Bar for Maxillomandibular Fixation in Mandibular Fractures

2017 ◽  
Vol 17 (2) ◽  
pp. 211-217
Author(s):  
Yashmeet Kaur Sandhu ◽  
Sarfaraz Padda ◽  
Tejinder Kaur ◽  
Amit Dhawan ◽  
Sarika Kapila ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Mandibular Fractures ◽  
Maxillomandibular Fixation ◽  
Arch Bar

scholarly journals Comparative Evaluation of the Embrasure Wire versus Arch Bar Maxillomandibular Fixation in the Management of Mandibular Fractures: Are Arch Bars Replaceable?

2018 ◽  
Vol 11 (2) ◽  
pp. 118-123
Author(s):  
Sanjay Rastogi ◽  
Tousif Ahmed ◽  
Kolli Giri ◽  
Ramakant Dandriyal ◽  
Indra B. Niranjana Prasad ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Statistical Significance ◽  
Demographic Data ◽  
Study Data ◽  
Mandibular Fractures ◽  
Intermaxillary Fixation ◽  
Maxillomandibular Fixation ◽  
Arch Bar ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Group A ◽  
Group B

The aim of this prospective study was to appraise the role of embrasure wiring in the treatment of mandibular fractures over the arch bar as adjunctive techniques of maxillomandibular fixation (MMF). This study was conducted on 40 patients who were surgically treated for mandibular fractures with accessory use of MMF (embrasure: group A vs. arch bars: group B). All patients were evaluated for demographic data, etiology, and location of fracture. Characteristically, the complications, including wire injury, infection, and malocclusion, were recorded. The data were analyzed using Student's t-test and chi-square test as appropriate. Statistical significance was set at p < 0.05). In this study, data from 40 patients were included. In group A (embrasure wiring), time required for placement of MMF was significantly less than (7.85 ± 0.81 minutes) that in group B, and also there was less incidence of wire prick to the operator in group A than in group B ( p < 0.05). However, in terms of wire prick and malocclusion, no statistically significant difference was noted in groups A and B ( p > 0.05). Patient treated with embrasure wiring intermaxillary fixation had better outcomes especially in terms of time of placement and less incidence of wire prick injury when compared with arch bar.

scholarly journals A COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF BI-CORTICAL SCREWS V/S ERICH’S ARCH BAR FOR MAXILLOMANDIBULAR FIXATION

2021 ◽  
Vol 2 (3) ◽  
pp. 448-457
Author(s):  
AMIT KUMAR SHARMA ◽  
AKSHAT GUPTA ◽  
NILESH ODEDRA ◽  
CHETNA GABHANE ◽  
HEMANG PABARI ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Comparative Analysis ◽  
Maxillomandibular Fixation ◽  
Arch Bar

Mandibular Osteosynthesis with Intraoral Miniplates and Cortical Bone Screws

1995 ◽  
Vol 74 (12) ◽  
pp. 814-820 ◽  
Author(s):  
Richard F. Busch
Keyword(s):  
Cortical Bone ◽  
Operating Time ◽  
Bone Screws ◽  
Mandibular Fractures ◽  
Anatomical Reduction ◽  
Maxillomandibular Fixation ◽  
Arch Bar ◽  
Intraoral Approach

Previously, this author and others described a technique of maxillomandibular fixation utilizing intraoral cortical bone screws and intermaxillary wires. This procedure has been very successful in achieving superior fixation of relatively undisplaced fractures in a fraction of the time previously required for arch bar application. A method was sought to extend the procedure to include displaced mandibular fractures as well. Miniplates have been utilized through the same intraoral approach to provide reduction of displaced fragments. Excellent fixation has been achieved with anatomical reduction while utilizing less than half the previous operating time. It appears that the majority of mandibular fractures can be treated with this combination of techniques.

scholarly journals MANDIBULAR FRACTURE MANAGEMENT;

2019 ◽  
Vol 26 (04) ◽  
Author(s):  
Manoj Kumar ◽  
Syed Fida Hussain Shah ◽  
Suneel Kumar Panjabi ◽  
Soonhan Abdullah ◽  
Salman Shams
Keyword(s):  
Operative Time ◽  
Mandibular Fracture ◽  
P Value ◽  
Mandibular Fractures ◽  
Maxillomandibular Fixation ◽  
Arch Bar ◽  
Case Series Study ◽  
Fracture Management ◽  
Maxillomandibular Fixation Screws ◽  
Screw Group

Objectives: To compare the efficacy of Maxillomandibular fixation screws versus Erich Arch bar in the management of mandibular fractures. Study Design: Comparative case series study. Setting: Department of Oral & Maxillofacial Surgery, Faculty of Dentistry, Liaquat University Hospital Hyderabad, Jamshoro. Period: 29/03/2016 to 28/09/2016. Methodology: Forty patients of either gender with age above 18 years with mandibular fracture requiring closed reduction were included. 20 patients of Groups A, treated with Maxillomandibular fixation screws and 20 patients of Group B treated with Erich Arch bar. Mean operative time was noted. All patients were followed up on every week up to four weeks. The statistical analysis via t-test was used and P-value <0.05 was categorized as significant. Results: In MMF screw group 13(65.0%) patients were male and 7(35.0%) patients were female whereas in Arch Bar group, 15(75.0%) were male and 5(25.0%) were female. Evidence of wire stick injury was found positive in 2(10.0%) and 4(20.0%) patients among MMF screw and Arch Bar groups respectively. In MMF screw group, mean operative time was 84.20±18.04 minutes whereas in Arch Bar groups it was 121.80±13.68 minutes. The mean operative time is significantly reduced in MMF screw group as compared to Arch Bar group with p value <0.01. Conclusion: We conclude that Maxillomandibular fixation with screws was more worthwhile mode as matched to the conservative Erich arch bars for managing the mandibular fractures.

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

2020 ◽  
pp. 194338752097141
Author(s):  
Anuj Jain ◽  
Anshul Rai
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Oral Hygiene ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Maxillofacial Trauma ◽  
Large Sample Size ◽  
Intermaxillary Fixation ◽  
Maxillomandibular Fixation ◽  
Arch Bar ◽  
Maxillofacial Fractures ◽  
Significant Difference

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.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document