Comparison of Efficacy and Safety of Hybrid Arch Bar with Erich Arch Bar in the Management of Mandibular Fractures: A Randomized Clinical Trial

Abstract

Study Design

A clinical randomized control trial.

Objective

To compare the efficacy and safety of Hybrid arch bar (HAB) with Erich arch bar (EAB) in fracture management of the mandible.

Methods

In this randomized clinical trial, 44 patients were divided into 2 groups:- Group 1, N = 23 (EAB group) and Group 2, N = 21 (HAB group). The primary outcome was time taken for the application of arch bar, while the inner and outer glove puncture, operator prick, oral hygiene, arch bar stability, complications of HAB, and cost comparison were secondary outcomes.

Results

The time taken for the application of arch bar in group 2 was significantly shorter than group 1 (55.66 ± 17.869 min vs 82.04 ± 12.197 min) and the frequency of outer glove puncture was also significantly lesser for group 2 (0 punctures vs 9 punctures). Better oral hygiene was found in group 2. EAB was cost-effective than HAB (Rs 700 ± 239.79 vs Rs 1742.50 ± 257.14). The stability of the arch bar was comparable in both groups. Group 2 had associated complications of root injury in 2 out of 252 screws placed and the screw head got covered by soft tissue in 137 out of 252 screws placed.

Conclusions

Thus, HAB was better than EAB with a shorter time of application, less risk of prick injury, and improved oral hygiene.

Clinical trial registry name- clinical trials registry- India, URL-http://ctri.nic.in, registration number- CTRI/2020/06/025966.

Keywords

Maxillomandibular fixation Mandible fracture Maxillofacial trauma Hybrid arch bar Erich arch bar

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Kendrick

Park

Barber

Indresano

. Stryker SMARTLock hybrid maxillomandibular fixation system: clinical application, complications, and radiographic findings. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2016;137:142e-150e.

King

Christensen

. Hybrid arch bars reduce placement time and glove perforations compared with Erich arch bars during the application of intermaxillary fixation: a randomized controlled trial. J Am Associat Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2019;77:e81228.

Chao

Hulsen

. Bone-supported arch bars are associated with comparable outcomes to Erich arch bars in the treatment of mandibular fractures with intermaxillary fixation. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2015;73:306-313.

Qureshi

Reddy

Warad

Badal

Jamadar

Qurishi

. Intermaxillary fixation screws versus Erich arch bars in mandibular fractures: a comparative study and review of literature. Ann Maxillofac Surg. 2016;6:25-30.

Kumar

Menon

Rattan

. Erich arch bar versus hanger plate technique for intermaxillary fixation in fracture mandible: a prospective comparative study. Natl J Maxillofac Surg. 2018;9:33-38.

Rai

Datarkar

Borle

. Are maxillomandibular fixation screws a better option than Erich arch bars in achieving maxillomandibular fixation? A randomized clinical study. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2011;69:3015-3018.

Bouloux

. Does the use of hybrid arch bars for the treatment of mandibular fractures reduce the length of surgery? J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2018;76:2595-2597.

Pieper

Schimmele

Johnson

Harper

. A prospective study of the efficacy of various gloving techniques in the application of Erich arch bars. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 1995;53:1174-1176.

Hashemi

Parhiz

. Complications using intermaxillary fixation screws. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2011;69:1411-1414.

10.

Alves

Jr Baratieri

Araújo

MTS

Souza

MMG

Maia

. Root damage associated with intermaxillary screws: a systematic review. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2012;41:1445-1450.

11.

Fabbroni

Aabed

Mizen

Starr

. Transalveolar screws and the incidence of dental damage: a prospective study. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2004;33:442-446.

12.

Hartwig

Boettner

Doll

, et al. Drill-related root injury caused by intraoperative intermaxillary fixation: an analysis of 1067 screw applications. Dent Traumatol. 2017;33:45-50.

13.

Coletti

Salama

Caccamese

Jr . Application of intermaxillary fixation screws in maxillofacial trauma. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2007;65:1746-1750.

14.

Roccia

Rossi

Gallesio

Boffano

. Self-tapping and self-drilling screws for intermaxillary fixation in management of mandibular fractures. J Craniofac Surg. 2009;20:68-70.

15.

Schulte-Geers

Kater

Seeberger

. Root trauma and tooth loss through the application of pre-drilled transgingival fixation screws. J Cran-Max-Fac Surg : Off Public Eur Assoc Cran-Max-Fac Surg. 2012;40:e214-e217.

16.

Nandini

Balakrishna

Rao

. Self tapping screws v/s Erich arch bar for inter maxillary fixation: a comparative clinical study in the treatment of mandibular fractures. J Maxillofac Oral Surg. 2011;10:127-131.

17.

West

Alan Griggs

Chandran

Vincent Precheur

Buchanan

Caloss

. Treatment outcomes with the use of maxillomandibular fixation screws in the management of mandible fractures. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2014;72:112-120.

18.

Van den Bergh

Blankestijn

Van Der Ploeg

Tuinzing

Forouzanfar

. Conservative treatment of a mandibular condyle fracture: comparing intermaxillary fixation with screws or arch bar. A randomised clinical trial. J Cranio-Maxillofacial Surg. 2015;43:671-676.

19.

Coburn

Kennedy

DWG

Hodder

. Complications with intermaxillary fixation screws in the management of fractured mandibles. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2002;40:241-243.

20.

Khelemsky

Powers

Greenberg

Suresh

Silver

Turner

. The hybrid arch bar is a cost-beneficial alternative in the open treatment of mandibular fractures. Craniomaxillofacial Trauma Reconstr. 2019;12:128-133.