Skip to main content
Top
Published in: Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery 3/2019

01-09-2019 | Original Article

A prospective comparative clinical study on modified screw retained arch bar (SRAB) and conventional Erich’s arch bar (CEAB)

Authors: Pankaj Pathak, Shaji Thomas, Darpan Bhargava, Sivakumar Beena

Published in: Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery | Issue 3/2019

Login to get access

Abstract

Introduction

Intermaxillary fixation (IMF) is commonly performed in the management of facial skeleton fractures. Various conventional methods like Erich’s arch bar and Ivy eyelet wiring are the most commonly employed methods for achieving IMF, but they have their own disadvantages. Conventional Erich’s arch bar (CEAB) has been modified recently by making perforations in the spaces between the winglets and securing the arch bar using 1 mm screws. IMF using intraoral modified screw retained arch bar (SRAB) has been introduced for the treatment of mandibular fractures. The aim of this study was to compare the efficacy, advantages, disadvantages, indications, and potential complications associated with CEAB versus modified SRAB in the management of mandibular fractures.

Materials and methods

A randomized prospective study included 20 patients with mandibular fracture who were randomly allotted to two groups. Group A patients received modified SRAB and group B patients received CEAB. The parameters considered were time taken to place the arch bar, perforation in the gloves, patient acceptance, oral hygiene, iatrogenic dental injuries, and needle (wire) stick injuries during IMF.

Results

The mean time taken for arch bar placement was 27.20 min with modified SRAB as compared with 82.50 min with CEAB. Incidence of glove perforations was more in group B patients. Oral hygiene status was good in 90% of the patients from group A whereas it was 100% fair in group B patients.

Conclusion

This study has shown that both the techniques achieve satisfactory IMF with post-operative occlusion. IMF with modified SRAB reduces the operating time and the incidence of the needle (wire) prick injuries. But modified SRAB has its own limitations in spite of its ease of application.
Literature
1.
go back to reference de Queiroz SB (2012) Modification of arch bars used for intermaxillary fixation in oral and maxillofacial surgery. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 42(4):481–482CrossRefPubMed de Queiroz SB (2012) Modification of arch bars used for intermaxillary fixation in oral and maxillofacial surgery. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 42(4):481–482CrossRefPubMed
2.
go back to reference Roccia F, Tavolaccini A, Dell’Acqua A, Fasolis M (2005) An audit of mandibular fractures treated by intermaxillary fixation using intraoral cortical bone screws. J Craniomaxillofac Surg 33(4):251–254CrossRefPubMed Roccia F, Tavolaccini A, Dell’Acqua A, Fasolis M (2005) An audit of mandibular fractures treated by intermaxillary fixation using intraoral cortical bone screws. J Craniomaxillofac Surg 33(4):251–254CrossRefPubMed
3.
go back to reference Coletti DP, Salama A, Caccamese JF Jr. (2007) Application of intermaxillary fixation screws in maxillofacial trauma. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 65(9):1746–1750 Coletti DP, Salama A, Caccamese JF Jr. (2007) Application of intermaxillary fixation screws in maxillofacial trauma. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 65(9):1746–1750
4.
go back to reference Busch RF, Prunes F (1991) Intermaxillary fixation with intraoral cortical bone screws. Laryngoscope. 101:1336–1338CrossRefPubMed Busch RF, Prunes F (1991) Intermaxillary fixation with intraoral cortical bone screws. Laryngoscope. 101:1336–1338CrossRefPubMed
5.
go back to reference Nandini GD, Balakrishna R, Rao J (2011) 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 10(2):127–131CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Nandini GD, Balakrishna R, Rao J (2011) 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 10(2):127–131CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
6.
go back to reference Chandan S, Ramanojam S (2010) Comparative evaluation of the resin bonded arch Bar VERSUS conventional Erich arch bar for intermaxillary fixation. J Maxillofac Oral Surg 9(3):231–235CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Chandan S, Ramanojam S (2010) Comparative evaluation of the resin bonded arch Bar VERSUS conventional Erich arch bar for intermaxillary fixation. J Maxillofac Oral Surg 9(3):231–235CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
7.
go back to reference Ayoub AF, Rowson J (2003) Comparative assessment of two methods used for interdental immobilization. J Craniomaxillofac Surg 31(3):159–161CrossRefPubMed Ayoub AF, Rowson J (2003) Comparative assessment of two methods used for interdental immobilization. J Craniomaxillofac Surg 31(3):159–161CrossRefPubMed
8.
go back to reference Avery CME, Johnson PA (1992) Surgical glove perforation and maxillofacial trauma: to plate or wire? Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg 30(1):31–35CrossRefPubMed Avery CME, Johnson PA (1992) Surgical glove perforation and maxillofacial trauma: to plate or wire? Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg 30(1):31–35CrossRefPubMed
9.
10.
go back to reference Qureshi AA, Reddy UK, Warad NM, Badal S, Jamadar AA, Qurishi N (2016) Intermaxillary fixation screws versus Erich arch bars in mandibular fractures: a comparative study and review of literature. Ann Maxillofac Surg 6(1):25–30CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Qureshi AA, Reddy UK, Warad NM, Badal S, Jamadar AA, Qurishi N (2016) Intermaxillary fixation screws versus Erich arch bars in mandibular fractures: a comparative study and review of literature. Ann Maxillofac Surg 6(1):25–30CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
Metadata
Title
A prospective comparative clinical study on modified screw retained arch bar (SRAB) and conventional Erich’s arch bar (CEAB)
Authors
Pankaj Pathak
Shaji Thomas
Darpan Bhargava
Sivakumar Beena
Publication date
01-09-2019
Publisher
Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Published in
Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery / Issue 3/2019
Print ISSN: 1865-1550
Electronic ISSN: 1865-1569
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10006-019-00766-1

Other articles of this Issue 3/2019

Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery 3/2019 Go to the issue