Bar-clip versus magnet-retained auricular prostheses: A prospective clinical study with a 3-year follow-up.

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM: Implant-retained auricular prostheses, on a bar-clip or with a magnetic retention system, are considered successful treatment for missing ears. However, which of these 2 retention systems is preferred by patients is unknown. PURPOSE: The purpose of this clinical study was to assess which retention system is mostly preferred by patients wearing implant-retained auricular prostheses: bar-clip retention or magnetic retention. MATERIAL AND METHODS: All consecutive patients visiting the clinic between March 2014 and November 2014 for a routine follow-up of their implant-retained auricular prostheses on a bar-clip retention system were asked to enroll in this descriptive study comparing patient preference for the retention system: bar-clip versus magnets. Participants were asked to complete a questionnaire to obtain patient satisfaction scores regarding their auricular prosthesis before and 3 months after changing to a magnetic-retained auricular prosthesis. After 3 months, participants were asked to state their preference for either their previous bar-clip system or the new magnetic system. If they did not prefer the magnetic system, participants were able to return to their previous bar-clip system. The study follow-ups were performed at 6, 12, 24, and 36 months. Again, patient satisfaction was scored with the aid of the same questionnaire, and prosthetic care and aftercare were also assessed. RESULTS: Of 20 eligible patients, 17 participants (12 men, 5 women) enrolled in the study. The mean score for patient satisfaction for the bar-clip system at the start of the study was high (8 ±1.62). After 3 months, 2 participants wanted to return to their previous bar-clip system, followed by 1 more at the 6-month evaluation and 2 more at the 1-year evaluation. After 3 years, 9 of 16 participants (57%) preferred the magnetic-retained auricular prosthesis. During the 3 years of follow-up, aftercare was considered minor for both the bar-clip and the magnetic system. No participants developed peri-implantitis. All participants indicated that cleaning and placing the magnetic-retained auricular prosthesis was easier than the bar-clip system. CONCLUSIONS: The majority of the participants (59%) in this study, especially the elderly participants, preferred the magnetic retention system. When compared with the bar-clip system, no additional aftercare was needed.

Dose-response relationship between periodontal inflamed surface area and HbA1c in type 2 diabetics.

BACKGROUND: A dose-response relationship between the amount of inflamed periodontal tissue and HbA1c level, might be indicative for a causal association between periodontitis and type 2 diabetes. AIM: To assess a dose-response relationship between the periodontal inflamed surface area (PISA), as a measure of the amount of inflamed periodontal tissue, and HbA1c levels in type 2 diabetics. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Forty consecutive dentate type 2 diabetics attending their general practitioner for regular check-up, underwent full-mouth probing pocket depth and bleeding on probing assessment. From these data PISA was calculated. HbA1c levels were retrieved from patients' medical files. The dose-response relationship between PISA and HbA1c levels was assessed using multiple linear regression analyses, controlling for factors that might influence PISA or HbA1c levels. RESULTS: The higher the PISA of type 2 diabetics was, the higher their HbA1c levels were. On a group level, an increase of PISA with 333 mm(2) was associated with a 1.0 percentage point increase of HbA1c, independent of the influence of other factors. CONCLUSION: On a group level, there is a dose-response relationship between PISA and HbA1c in type 2 diabetics. This might be an indication of a causal relationship between type 2 diabetes and periodontitis.