Purpose: The purpose of this study was to compare the time for placement and removal, the effect on the gingiva, and the operator safety of the Stryker Universal SMARTLock Hybrid MMF system (Stryker Craniomaxillofacial, Kalamazoo, MI) with traditional Erich arch bars.
Materials And Methods: We designed a parallel-group, randomized controlled trial to compare the 2 types of arch bars. Patients with mandibular fractures presenting to our institution were enrolled in the study and randomized into 1 of 2 groups: the Erich arch bar group and the hybrid arch bar group. The primary outcome variable was arch bar placement time. Secondary outcomes were glove tears or penetrations during application, gingival appearance score at removal, loose hardware at removal, removal time, and glove tears or penetrations at removal. The groups were compared using t tests.
Results: We enrolled 90 patients in the study, with 43 randomized to the Erich arch bar group and 47 randomized to the hybrid arch bar group. The mean application time was 31.3 ± 9.3 minutes for Erich arch bars and 6.9 ± 3.1 minutes for hybrid arch bars (P < .0001). Significantly more glove tears or penetrations occurred during application in the Erich Arch Bar group (0.56 ± 0.91 per application) than in the hybrid group (0.11 ± 0.32 per application) (P = .0025). At removal, no difference in overall gingival appearance or amount of loose hardware was noted. The time for removal was significantly less for the hybrid arch bar group (10.5 ± 5.1 minutes vs 17.9 ± 10.7 minutes, P = .0007).
Conclusions: Hybrid arch bars with bone-borne locking screws offer a number of advantages over traditional Erich arch bars and circumdental wires, including shorter placement and removal times and a greater margin of safety for the operating surgeon as shown by significantly fewer glove tears and penetrations.
Download full-text PDF |
Source |
|---|---|
| http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.joms.2019.01.030 | DOI Listing |
Publication Analysis
Top Keywords
Similar Publications
Maxillomandibular Fixation: Understanding the Risks and Benefits of Contemporary Techniques in Adults.
Facial Plast Surg Aesthet Med
October 2024
Department of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, Tripler Army Medical Center, Tripler AMC, Hawaii, USA.
Article Synopsis
- Various techniques for maxillomandibular fixation (MMF) exist, with Erich arch bars being the traditional choice, but each method has its own pros and cons.
- Newer approaches like IMF screws and hybrid arch bars have emerged, spurring analysis of MMF technologies approved from 2005 to 2023.
- Despite a lack of definitive data favoring any single technique, the article suggests decision-making criteria for surgeons based on specifics like patient comfort and stability needs.
Trends in Maxillomandibular Fixation Technique at a Single Academic Institution.
Craniomaxillofac Trauma Reconstr
June 2024
Department of Otolaryngology, Head and Neck Surgery, University of Kansas Medical Center, Kansas City, KS, USA.
Study Design: Retrospective chart review.
Objective: Restoration of premorbid occlusion is a key goal in the treatment of mandibular fractures. Placement of the patient in maxillomandibular fixation (MMF) is performed during mandibular fracture repair to help establish occlusion.
Modified Eyelet Wiring: A Technical Note.
J Maxillofac Oral Surg
April 2024
Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, VSPM Dental College and Research Centre, Nagpur, Maharashtra India.
Introduction: The objective of establishing intra-operative occlusion by temporary inter-maxillary fixation remains constant even with evolving principles for the treatment of facial fractures.
Material And Methods: In the novel technique, a pre-stretched 24- gauge round stainless-steel wire of six inches length is used.
Results: The novel technique is a modification of the conventional eyelet wiring, which can achieve both horizontal stabilization and maxillo-mandibular fixation.
Patient outcomes and complications following various maxillomandibular fixation techniques: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg
May 2024
Division of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health, Madison, WI, USA. Electronic address:
Purpose: Currently, there are several methods of achieving maxillomandibular fixation (MMF), each with its unique operative considerations and subsequent patient outcomes and complications. In this study, we reviewed the literature to evaluate and compare all MMF methods.
Methods: A systematic review of all MMF types was conducted and post-operative outcome data were analyzed and compared among the different types.
Comparison of Clinical Efficacy of Screw-retained Arch Bar vs Conventional Erich's Arch Bar in Maxillomandibular Fixation: A Randomized Clinical Trial.
J Contemp Dent Pract
December 2023
Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Faculty of Dentistry, Mansoura University, Mansoura, Aldakhlia, Egypt.
Aim: This study aimed to compare the clinical outcomes of a conventional Erich's arch bar vs a modified screw-retained arch bar in maxillomandibular fixation of mandibular fracture.
Materials And Methods: This parallel-arm randomized control trial included patients from the outpatient clinic with single favorable mandibular fractures that are indicated for closed reduction. They were subjected to maxillomandibular fixation using conventional Erich's arch bars in the control group and modified screw-retained arch bars in the study group.
Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?
Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!