Comparison between screw retained arch bars and conventional Erich’s arch bar in maxillofacial fractures

Abstract

: Establishing a stable occlusion and Maxillomandibular fixation (MMF) is a cornerstone for rigid fixation. Conventional Erich’s arch bar poses a risk of wire stick injury, and extrusion of teeth, and is unsuitable for patients with periodontally compromised teeth or edentulous dentition. There is a dearth of literature comparing modified Screw retained arch bars to the Conventional Erich’s arch bar. Hence, a study was conducted to evaluate the same.: The study compared 30 patients requiring MMF. Group A patients received modified SRAB and group B patients received CEAB. The primary predictor variable was the use of conventional Erich arch bars versus modified screw-retained arch bars. The parameters considered were time taken to place the arch bar, perforation in the gloves, patient compliance, stability, oral hygiene, mouth opening, and post-op occlusion.: The mean time taken for placement of the modified SRAB was lower (27.87 mins) as compared to the CEAB (90.20 mins). The rate of glove perforation was higher in the CEAB group. All patients were compliant in the modified SRAB group as compared to the control group (30%). There was no significant difference in the mouth opening between the two groups.: Based on the study results, we can conclude that modified SRAB is a superior alternative compared to CEAB in maxillomandibular fractures. The usage of modified SRAB does not affect the functional outcome of fracture management.