Related Experiment Video
Updated: Dec 7, 2025
In situ Compressive Loading and Correlative Noninvasive Imaging of the Bone-periodontal Ligament-tooth Fibrous Joint
Published on: March 7, 2014
A randomized prospective comparison of maxillomandibular fixation (MMF) techniques: "SMARTLock" hybrid MMF versus MMF
Nawaf Aslam-Pervez1, John F Caccamese2, Gary Warburton3
1Consultant Oral & Maxillofacial Surgeon, Children's Hospital, M Health Fairview Southdale Hospital, Minneapolis, MN, USA.
Objective:
The aim of this study was to assess the efficacy of the "SMARTLock" hybrid system and determine whether it results in fewer intraoperative and postoperative complications compared with placement of intermaxillary fixation (IMF) screws in trauma patients.
Study Design:
This prospective study, which was approved by the institutional review board, compared the results of MMF in mandibular fractures by using the Stryker "SMARTLock" hybrid system versus traditional IMF screws. Patients were recruited and assigned randomly to either group. The 2 groups were compared for placement time, intraoperative complications, loosening of hardware, postoperative complications, and time to device removal.
Results:
We enrolled 32 patients in the study, with 13 patients randomized to the group receiving hybrid MMF (HMMF) with the SMARTLock system and 19 to the group of patients receiving MMF with traditional IMF screws. The mean application time for HMMF was 25.92 minutes compared with 18.28 minutes for IMF screws. After removal, the HMMF was associated with gingival overgrowth and gingival edema.
Conclusions:
This is the first study to compare HMMF with MMF with the use of IMF screws. Hybrid arch bars do require more manipulation for ideal placement compared with individually placed bone screws to achieve ideal MMF. Compared with IMF screws, the hybrid device was associated with gingival edema and overgrowth, but there was decreased incidence of loosening in the postoperative period.
