Within-subject comparison of two rigid bar designs connecting two interforaminal implants: patients' satisfaction and prosthetic results

BACKGROUND: There is evidence for the superiority of two-implant overdentures over complete dentures in the mandible. Various anchorage devices were used to provide stability to overdentures. The aim of the present study was to compare two designs of a rigid bar connecting two mandibular implants. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Completely edentulous patients received a new denture in the maxilla and an implant-supported overdenture in the mandible. They were randomly allocated to two groups (A or B) with regard to the bar design. A standard U-shaped bar (Dolder bar) was used connecting the two implants in a straight line. For comparison, precision attachments were soldered distal to the bar copings. Group A started the study with the standard bar (S-bar), while group B started with the attachment-bar (A-bar). After 3 months, they had to answer a questionnaire (visual analogue scale [VAS]); then the bar design was changed in both groups. After a period of another 3 months, the patients had to answer the same questions; then they had the choice to keep their preferred bar. Now the study period was extended to another year of observation, and the patients answered again the same questionnaire. In vivo force measurements were carried out with both bar types at the end of the test periods. The prosthetic maintenance service carried out during the 6-month period was recorded for both bar types in both groups. Statistical analysis as performed with the SPSS statistical package (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL, USA). RESULTS: Satisfaction was high in both groups. Group B, who had entered the study with the attachment bar, gave slightly better ratings to this type for four items, while in group A, no differences were found. At the end of the 6-month comparison period, all but one patient wished to continue to wear the attachment bar. Prosthetic service was equal in groups A and B, but the total number of interventions is significantly higher in the attachment bar. Force patterns of maximum biting were similar in both bar designs, but exhibited significantly higher axial forces in the attachment bar. CONCLUSIONS: Both bar designs provide good retention and functional comfort. High stability appears to be an important factor for the patients' satisfaction and oral comfort. Rigid retention results in a higher force impact and appears to evoke the need for the retightening of occlusal screws, resulting in more maintenance service.

Stability after bilateral sagittal split osteotomy setback surgery with rigid internal fixation: a systematic review

PURPOSE: The purpose of this systematic review was to evaluate relapse and its causes in bilateral sagittal split setback osteotomy with rigid internal fixation. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Literature research was done in databases such as PubMed, Ovid, the Cochrane Library, and Google Scholar Beta. From the original 488 articles identified, 14 articles were finally included. Only 5 studies were prospective and 9 retrospective. The range of postoperative study records was from 6 weeks to 12.7 years. RESULTS: The horizontal short-term relapse was between 9.9% and 62.1% at point B and between 15.7% and 91.3% at pogonion. Long-term relapse was between 14.9% and 28.0% at point B and between 11.5% and 25.4% at pogonion. CONCLUSIONS: Neither large increase nor decrease of relapse was seen when short-term values were compared with long-term. Bilateral sagittal split osteotomy for mandibular setback in combination with orthodontics is an effective treatment of skeletal Class III and a stable procedure in the short- and long-term. The etiology of relapse is multifactorial: the proper seating of the condyles, the amount of setback, the soft tissue and muscles, remaining growth and remodeling, and gender were identified. Age did not show any correlations. To obtain reliable scientific evidence, further short- and long-term research of bilateral sagittal split osteotomy setback with rigid internal fixation should exclude additional surgery, ie, genioplasty or maxillary surgery, and include correlation statistics.

Do patients respect the line? Transgression of boundaries reported by Swiss general practitioners

OBJECTIVE: Transgression of boundaries in the relationship between physician and patient is commonly studied with patient as victim and physician as transgressor. A recent survey in the U.S. reported that almost 90% of physicians face transgression by patients over one year. Incidents happened mainly through verbal abuse, disregarding privacy, and overly affectionate behavior. Since this incidence seems to be alarmingly high, we were interested to analyze how often general practitioners in Switzerland experience transgression by patients. METHODS: 24% of the members of the Swiss Society of Internal Medicine (SGIM) and of the Swiss Society of General Medicine (SGAM) (n=675/2781) responded to an internet-based survey which asked for experiences of transgression by patients and for physicians' responses to transgression in the last 12 months. RESULTS: 81% of responding physicians experienced transgression over the period of one year. Analyzing the frequency of incidents per physician per year, the most common forms of transgression were 'use of physician's first name' (7.7/y), 'asking personal questions' (1.8/y), 'being verbally abusive' (1.5/y), and 'being overly affectionate' (1.4/y). Calculated incidence of transgression was 3 per 1000 patient contacts. 39% of physicians decided to ignore the incident, 37% discussed the event openly. Transgression led to dismissal of patients in 13% of events. CONCLUSION: Transgression even in mild and modest form is a rare phenomenon in Swiss practices. PRACTICE IMPLICATION: The Swiss data do not suggest that there is a specific risk for Swiss practitioners to be exposed to major transgression for which they should specifically be prepared for example in communication skills trainings.

Stability after bilateral sagittal split osteotomy advancement surgery with rigid internal fixation: a systematic review

PURPOSE: The purpose of this systematic review was to evaluate horizontal relapse and its causes in bilateral sagittal split advancement osteotomy (BSSO) with rigid internal fixation of different types. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A search of the literature was performed in the databases PubMed, Ovid, Cochrane Library, and Google Scholar Beta. From 488 articles identified, 24 articles were finally included. Six studies were prospective, and 18 were retrospective. The range of postoperative study records was 6 months to 12.7 years. RESULTS: The short-term relapse for bicortical screws was between 1.5% and 32.7%, for miniplates between 1.5% and 18.0%, and for bioresorbable bicortical screws between 10.4% and 17.4%, at point B. The long-term relapse for bicortical screws was between 2.0% and 50.3%, and for miniplates between 1.5% and 8.9%, at point B. CONCLUSIONS: BSSO for mandibular advancement is a good treatment option for skeletal Class II, but seems less stable than BSSO setback in the short and long terms. Bicortical screws of titanium, stainless steel, or bioresorbable material show little difference regarding skeletal stability compared with miniplates in the short term. A greater number of studies with larger skeletal long-term relapse rates were evident in patients treated with bicortical screws instead of miniplates. The etiology of relapse is multifactorial, involving the proper seating of the condyles, the amount of advancement, the soft tissue and muscles, the mandibular plane angle, the remaining growth and remodeling, the skill of the surgeon, and preoperative age. Patients with a low mandibular plane angle have increased vertical relapse, whereas patients with a high mandibular plane angle have more horizontal relapse. Advancements in the range of 6 to 7 mm or more predispose to horizontal relapse. To obtain reliable scientific evidence, further short-term and long-term research into BSSO advancement with rigid internal fixation should exclude additional surgery, ie, genioplasty or maxillary surgery, and include a prospective study or randomized clinical trial design with correlation statistics.

On producing and sharing knowledge across boundaries: experiences from the interfaces of an international development research network

The number of large research networks and programmes engaging in knowledge production for development has grown over the past years. One of these programmes devoted to generating knowledge about and for development is National Centre of Competence in Research (NCCR) North–South, a cross-disciplinary, international development research network funded by the Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation and the Swiss National Science Foundation. Producing relevant knowledge for development is a core goal of the programme and an important motivation for many of the participating researchers. Over the years, the researchers have made use of various spaces for exchange and instruments for co-production of knowledge by academic and non-academic development actors. In this article we explore the characteristics of co-producing and sharing knowledge in interfaces between development research, policy and NCCR North–South practice. We draw on empirical material of the NCCR North–South programme and its specific programme element of the Partnership Actions. Our goal is to make use of the concept of the interface to reflect critically about the pursued strategies and instruments applied in producing and sharing knowledge for development across boundaries.