Evaluation of the efficacy of hybrid arch bar versus conventional arch bar in the management of facial fractures: A pilot study

Introduction: Intermaxillary fixation (IMF) has been utilized to stabilize maxilla/mandibular fractures and orthognathic procedures. In the literature, many techniques for maxillomandibular fixation are reported, including the use of arch bars or bone screws. Except for using bone screws, all other treatments run the danger of damaging the lips and periodontal tissues, taking longer duration, and exposing the surgeon or assistant to different infections through glove punctures and subsequent wire prick wounds. A redesigned hybrid arch bar is being utilized to solve these issues. This research compares the typical arch bar for MMF with a hybrid arch bar (with screws). Material and Methods: Twenty patients with facial fractures needing IMF were included in the study. Ten patients were treated with Erich’s arch bars, and 10 patients were treated with hybrid arch bars (with screws). Time consumed for the placement of arch bar, glove perforation, and pre- and postoperative periodontal condition and vitality was assessed and compared. Results: Results of the study showed the increase in mean plaque index to be statistically significant in the conventional arch bars group, suggestive of poor oral hygiene. Also, the time duration for the modified arch bar placement was lower than that of conventional arch bars ( P < 0.001). Conclusion: Patients treated with the hybrid arch bars showed better periodontal status post-IMF than patients treated with the conventional arch bar. The technique of placing hybrid arch bar was easier and less time-consuming, with fewer wire prick injuries while placing the modified arch bars.