Treatment Outcome Comparison between Tooth Borne vs Bone Borne Intermaxillary Fixation Devices: A Systematic Review

Intermaxillary fixation (IMF) using the arch bar has been the standard technique for a long time in the management of mandibular fracture. However, tooth borne IMF may cause several complications, hence intermaxillary fixation with screws has been introduced and adopted to use. This investigation compared the treatment outcomes and complications between the traditional IMF and modified intermaxillary fixation with screws technique. This review was done according to PRISMA Guidelines. We searched through PubMed, Science Direct, Scopus, EMBASE, and Cochrane. The keywords used were of “intermaxillary fixation”, “arch bar”, “screw”, “maxillofacial fracture”, “outcome”, “occlusion”. Inclusion criteria encompassed clinical trials, observational studies, and retrospective analyses comparing treatment outcomes between tooth-borne and bone-borne IMF devices. 1, 391 studies were identified, after eliminating process of the duplicates and irrelevant studies, the remaining 13 studies were included and assessed for qualitative analysis. The treatment outcome indicators were divided into group; intraoperative, postoperative, and complications. Both types of IMF are significantly beneficial, however, each type has their own challenges. In choosing the type of device, surgeon’s preference, and experience, also a thorough case-by-case selection are important in achieving occlusal goals in treating maxillofacial fractures.