Matrix WaveTM System for Mandibulo-Maxillary Fixation—Just Another Variation on the MMF Theme?—Part II: In Context to Self-Made Hybrid Erich Arch Bars and Commercial Hybrid MMF Systems—Literature Review and Analysis of Design Features

TL;DR

This paper reviews hybrid MMF devices, comparing self-made and commercial systems, and highlights design features that affect their effectiveness in preventing tooth root damage.

Contribution

The paper provides a detailed comparative analysis of hybrid MMF systems, focusing on design features and their clinical implications.

Findings

Self-made hybrid arch bars struggle to meet low-risk interradicular screw insertion sites.

Commercial hybrid MMF systems like the SMARTLock System offer faster application and reduced risk of tooth root damage.

Design features such as height profile and geometry shape can limit spatial orientation during placement.

Abstract

Study design: Trends in the utilization of Mandibulo-Maxillary Fixation (MMF) are shifting nowadays from tooth-borne devices over specialized screws to hybrid MMF devices. Hybrid MMF devices come in self-made Erich arch bar modifications and commercial hybrid MMF systems (CHMMFSs). Objective: We survey the available technical/clinical data. Hypothetically, the risk of tooth root damage by transalveolar screws is diminished by a targeting function of the screw holes/slots. Methods: We utilize a literature review and graphic displays to disclose parallels and dissimilarities in design and functionality with an in-depth look at the targeting properties. Results: Self-made hybrid arch bars have limitations to meet low-risk interradicular screw insertion sites. Technical/clinical information on CHMMFSs is unevenly distributed in favor of the SMARTLock System: positive outcome variables are increased speed of application/removal, the possibility to eliminate wiring and stick injuries and screw fixation with standoff of the embodiment along the attached gingiva. Inferred from the SMARTLock System, all four CHMMFs possess potential to effectively prevent tooth root injuries but are subject to their design features and targeting with the screw-receiving holes. The height profile and geometry shape of a CHMMFS may restrict three-dimensional spatial orientation and reach during placement. To bridge between interradicular spaces and tooth equators, where hooks or tie-up-cleats for intermaxillary cerclages should be ideally positioned under biomechanical aspects, can be problematic. The movability of their screw-receiving holes according to all six degrees of freedom differs. Conclusion: CHMMFSs allow simple immobilization of facial fractures involving dental occlusion. The performance in avoiding tooth root damage is a matter of design subtleties.

Figures