Related Experiment Video
Updated: May 2, 2026
Author Spotlight: Insights into an Efficient Murine Maxillary Orthodontic Model Protocol
Published on: October 27, 2023
Comparison of intermaxillary fixation screw versus eyelet interdental wiring for intermaxillary fixation in minimally
Pranav D Ingole1, Anoop Garg2, S Ramakrishna Shenoi3
1Senior Lecturer, Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Vidya Shikshan Prasarak Mandal Dental College and Research Centre, Nagpur, Maharashtra, India.
Purpose:
The aim of the present randomized study was to evaluate the efficacy of intermaxillary fixation screw (IMFS) versus eyelet interdental wiring for intermaxillary fixation (IMF) in minimally displaced mandibular fractures.
Materials And Methods:
A total of 50 patients with a minimally displaced mandibular fracture were enrolled, with 25 patients randomly selected for each group. In group I (study group, n = 25), the patients were treated using IMFS, and in group II (control group, n = 25), they received eyelet interdental wiring. Both techniques were assessed for the following parameters: time required for placement and removal of each type of IMF technique, time required for placement of IMF wires, postoperative occlusion, stability of the IMF wire, local anesthesia requirement during removal of each fixation type, oral hygiene status, glove perforation rate, and complications associated with both techniques. The collected data were analyzed using Student's unpaired t test or χ2 test. P < .05 was considered significant and the Statistical Package for Social Sciences software, version 10, was used for analysis.
Results:
The average time required for placement in groups I and II was 17.56 and 35.08 minutes, respectively (P = .000). The time required for placement of the IMF wire in group I was 2.1 minutes and in group II was 6 minutes. The oral hygiene status was assessed, and the mean plaque index score for groups I and II was 1.44 and 2.12, respectively (P = .00). The glove perforation rate was much less in group I than in group II. Finally, the most common complication in both groups was mucosal growth.
Conclusions:
The results established the supremacy of IMFS compared with eyelet interdental wiring. Thus, we have concluded that IMFS, in the present scenario, is a safe and time-saving technique. IMFS is a cost-effective, straightforward, and viable alternative to cumbersome eyelet interdental and other wiring techniques for providing IMF, with satisfactory occlusion during closed reduction or intraoperative open reduction internal fixation of fractures. In addition, oral hygiene can be maintained, and the glove perforation rate was very low using IMFS. The relatively small sample size and limited follow-up period were the study limitations.
