# Minne Ties Hybrid Arch Bar System vs. Erich Arch Bars: A Cadaveric Comparison Study

## TL;DR

This study compares two systems for jaw fracture treatment, finding that the Minne Ties system is faster and safer than the traditional Erich Arch Bars.

## Contribution

The study introduces and evaluates the Minne Ties Hybrid Arch Bar System as a faster and safer alternative to Erich Arch Bars for maxillomandibular fixation.

## Key findings

- MTHAB reduced application time by nearly half compared to EABs.
- MTHAB was rated higher for ease of use and safety by surgeons.
- MTHAB required more elastics to match the occlusal forces of EABs.

## Abstract

Jaw fracture management significantly advanced with the introduction of Erich Arch Bars (EABs) during World War II, becoming the gold standard for maxillomandibular fixation (MMF). EABs, however, are time-consuming, pose risks of sharps injuries, and hinder oral hygiene and patient comfort. This study tested the Minne Ties Hybrid Arch Bar System (MTHAB), a novel MMF technology. This cadaveric study used specimens with near-complete dentition to compare MTHAB and EABs. The technologies were applied by trained surgeons to measure occlusal forces, increasing elastic loads, and application and removal times. Surgeons completed structured usability surveys. The results indicated that MTHAB significantly reduced application time (19.8 ± 4.1 min versus 35.2 ± 5.7 min, p = 0.0027) and removal time (1.6 ± 0.4 min versus 5.1 ± 2.1 min, p = 0.0465) compared to EABs, while also being rated higher for ease of use and safety. Both technologies achieved acceptable occlusion forces, although MTHAB needed more elastics to achieve comparable forces to EABs. While MTHAB appears promising, future clinical trials are needed to evaluate long-term outcomes, fixation stability, and patient selection. MTHAB represents a potential advancement in MMF technology, balancing surgical efficiency, safety, and fixation strength.