Erich Arch Bars vs Intermaxillary Fixation Screws for Mandibular Fracture Reduction during ORIF: A Randomized Clinical Trial

Abstract

Abstract Objective This randomized clinical trial aimed to compare the efficacy of Erich Arch Bars (EAB) and Intermaxillary Fixation (IMF) Screws in reducing mandibular fractures during Open Reduction and Internal Fixation (ORIF). Material and Methods A 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. Results The study found no significant 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 biofilm 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 significant differences were observed in other quality of life parameters. Patient characteristics were well-distributed between the two groups, enhancing the reliability of the results. Conclusion Both 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 findings and explore the stability of IMF methods in cases requiring postoperative malocclusion correction or prolonged IMF. Clinical relevance: When treating patients with minimally displaced mandibular fractures, both Erich Arch Bars (EAB) and Intermaxillary Fixation (IMF) screws can be considered as viable treatment options due to comparable occlusal stability outcomes. Clinicians can choose either method based on factors such as surgical preference and patient-specific considerations.