COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF HYBRID ARCH BAR AND ERICH ARCH BAR IN THE MANAGEMENT OF MAXILLOMANDIBULAR FRACTURES

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to compare operative time, effect on the gingiva, glove penetration rate and post-operative complications of the Hybrid arch bar (HAB) and Erich arch bar (EAB). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients reporting to our institution, diagnosed with maxillomandibular fractures indicated for IMF were included in the study and randomized into two groups (Group I with Hybrid arch bars and Group II with Erich arch bars). Operative time in minutes, glove penetration rate were evaluated during the placement and removal of the arch bar. Gingival health was evaluated before the placement and after removal of the arch bar and different complications encountered were evaluated during every visit. Both of the groups were compared using t test and chi-square tes RESULTS: Of the 80 cases studied, 40 were in the Hybrid arch bar group and 40 in the Erich arch bar group. The Hybrid group had a mean age of 30.10 years, while the Erich group had a mean age of 26.10 years, with a statistically significant age difference between the groups. The Hybrid group showed a lower gingival index postIMF compared to the Erich group (0.99 vs. 2.07), and the Hybrid arch bar required significantly less time for placement (44 minutes vs. 74 minutes) and had no glove penetrations, unlike the Erich group, which had a 40% penetration rate. Post-operative complications were also lower in the Hybrid group, with fewer cases of loose screws. CONCLUSION: The hybrid arch bar system can be used as an alternative to traditional Erich arch bars for maxillomandibular fixation in patients with maxillomandibular fractures with no major complications. It provides quicker placement of the arch bars improving the safety of the operator and preserving the gingival health of the patient.