Conservative treatment of a mandibular condyle fracture: Comparing intermaxillary fixation with screws or arch bar. A randomised clinical trial

Abstract

Introduction: A mandibular condyle fracture can be treated conservatively by intermaxillary fixation (IMF) or by open reposition and internal fixation (ORIF). Many IMF-modalities can be chosen, including IMF-screws (IMFS). This prospective multi-centre randomised clinical trial compared the use of IMFS with the use of arch bars in the treatment of mandibular condyle fractures.

Results: The study population consisted of 50 patients (mean age: 31.8 years). Twenty-four (48%) patients were allocated in the IMFS group. Twenty-six (52%) patients were assigned to the arch bars group. In total 188 IMF-screws were used (5-12 screws per patient, mean 7.83 screws per patient). All pain scores were lower in the IMFS group. Three patients developed a malocclusion (IFMS-group: one patient, arch bars-group: two patients). Mean surgical time was significantly shorter in the IMFS group (59 vs. 126 min; p<0.001). There were no needlestick injuries (0%) in the IMFS group and eight (30.7%) in the arch bars group (p=0.003). One IMF-screw fractured on insertion (0.53%), one (0.53%) screw was inserted into a root. Six (3.2%) screws loosened spontaneously in four patients. Mucosal disturbances were seen in 22 patients, equally divided over both groups.

Conclusion: Considering the advantages and the disadvantages of IMFS, and observing the results of this study, the authors conclude that IMFS provide a superior method for IMF. IMFS are safer for the patients and surgeons.

Keywords: Arch bars; IMF-screws (IMFS); Intermaxillary fixation (IMF); Mandibular condyle fracture; Mandibular fracture.