Objectives: This study aimed to compare the effectiveness of a hybrid arch bar (hAB) with the conventional Erich arch bar (EAB) for the management of jaw fractures, focusing on their use for temporary fixation in patients undergoing open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF). Materials and Methods: Patients presenting with maxillary and mandibular fractures at our institution were included in this prospective, comparative study. Placement time and ease of occlusal reproducibility were recorded intraoperatively for Group A (hAB patients) and Group B (EAB patients). The primary outcome was comparison of the postoperative stability of the two arch bars. Postoperative measurements also included mucosal overgrowth, screw loosening or wire retightening, and replacement rates. The data were tabulated and computed with a P<0.05 considered statistically significant. Results: The study included 41 patients. A statistically significant difference was observed in postoperative stability scores (3) between Group A and Group B (85.0% vs 9.5%, P=0.001). The mean placement time in Group A (23.3 minutes) significantly differed from that in Group B (86.4 minutes) (P<0.001). The ease of intraoperative occlusion was not different between the two groups (P=0.413). Mucosal overgrowth was observed in 75.0% of patients (15 of 20) in Group A. Conclusion The hAB was superior to EAB in clinical efficiency, maxillomandibular fixation time reduction, stability, versatility, and safety. Despite temporary mucosal overgrowth, the benefits of hAB outweigh the disadvantages. The choice between hAB and EAB should be based on specific clinical requirements.

Dentoalveolar (DA) trauma, which can involve tooth, alveolar bone, and surrounding soft tissues, is a significant dentofacial emergency. In emergency settings, physicians might lack comprehensive knowledge of timely procedures, causing delays for specialist referral. This systematic review assesses the literature on isolated DA fractures, emphasizing intervention timing and splinting techniques and duration in both children and adults. This systematic review adhered to PRISMA guidelines and involved a thorough search across PubMed, Google Scholar, Semantic Scholar, and the Cochrane Library from January 1980 to December 2022. Inclusion and exclusion criteria guided study selection, with data extraction and analysis centered on demographics, etiology, injury site, diagnostics, treatment timelines, and outcomes in pediatric (2-12 years) and adult (>12 years) populations. This review analyzed 26 studies, categorized by age into pediatrics (2-12 years) and adults (>12 years). Falls were a common etiology, primarily affecting the anterior maxilla. Immediate management involved replantation, repositioning, and splinting within 24 hours (pediatric) or 48 hours (adult). Composite resin-bonded splints were common. Endodontic treatment was done within a timeframe of 3 days to 12 weeks for children and 2-12 weeks for adults.Tailored management based on patient age, tooth development stage, time elapsed, and resource availability is essential.