PATIENTS AND METHODS: This international, multicenter randomized controlled trial included adults with bilateral mandibular fractures located at either the angle and body, angle and symphysis, or body and symphysis. Patients were treated with either a combination of rigid fixation for the anterior fracture and nonrigid fixation for the posterior fracture (mixed fixation) or nonrigid fixation for both fractures. The primary outcome was complications within 6 weeks after surgery. Secondary outcomes were complications within 3 months, Helkimo dysfunction index, and mandibular mobility at 6 weeks and 3 months after surgery.
RESULTS: Of the 315 patients enrolled, 158 were randomized to the mixed fixation group and 157 to the nonrigid fixation group. The overall complication rate at 6 weeks in the intention-to-treat population was 9.6% (95% confidence interval [CI], 5.3% to 15.6%) in the mixed fixation group and 7.8% (95% CI, 4.0% to 13.5%) in the nonrigid fixation group. With an unadjusted odds ratio of 1.25 (95% CI, 0.51 to 3.17), there were no statistically significant differences in complication rates between the 2 groups (P = .591). A multivariable model for complication risk at 6 weeks found no significant differences between treatment groups, but patients with moderate or severe displacement had a higher complication rate than those with no or minimal displacement (adjusted odds ratio, 4.58; 95% CI, 1.16 to 18.06; P = .030). There were no significant between-group differences in complication rates at 3 months. Moreover, no significant differences in Helkimo dysfunction index and mandibular mobility index at 6 weeks and 3 months were found between groups according to treatment allocated and treatment received.
CONCLUSIONS: A combination of rigid and nonrigid fixation in patients with bilateral mandibular fracture has similar complication rates and functional outcomes to nonrigid fixation for both fractures.
BACKGROUND: Literature lacks information on various unsplinted attachment systems and their effect on peri-implant tissue health. A focus question (as per PICOS) was set as follows: Does one particular unsplinted attachment system (I) compared with another (C) results in better peri-implant outcomes (O) in two implant-retained mandibular overdentures (P) using randomized controlled trials (RCTs) (S)? The literature search was conducted in the PubMed, MEDLINE and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) databases between January 2011 and December 2021. The keywords used were "denture, overlay," "denture," "overlay" AND "dental prosthesis, implant supported," "dental implants," "dental implant abutment design" AND "jaw, edentulous," "mouth, edentulous" AND "mandible." Only RCTs on two implant-retained mandibular overdentures using unsplinted attachment systems measuring peri-implant tissue outcomes with minimum 1-year follow-up were selected. In total, 224 studies were identified in initial search, and 25 were shortlisted for full-text evaluation. Four studies were included for systematic review upon considering inclusion and exclusion criteria. The risk of bias was evaluated using Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool 2.0 (RoB 2.0).
REVIEW RESULTS: A total of 41 patients received ball attachments (in 3 studies), 36 patients received low-profile attachments (in 3 studies), 16 patients received magnet attachments (in 1 study), and 13 patients received telescopic attachments (in 1 study). All four studies used standard sized implants, however, differed in implant manufacturers. Two studies which compared ball attachments low-profile attachments revealed-similar peri-implant tissue health parameters but differed in crestal bone-level changes. One study compared ball with telescopic attachments and revealed similar results in crestal bone-level changes and all four peri-implant tissue health parameters. Single study compared magnets with low-profile attachments and shown lesser bone loss with magnet attachments. Single study was judged to have low risk of bias, single with some concerns, and remaining two to have high risk of bias.
CONCLUSION: Gingival index and bleeding index of the patients were not influenced by any of the unsplinted overdenture attachment (stud, magnet, telescopic) system. Inconclusive results found among the studies evaluated comparing crestal bone loss and plaque index.
CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: This review manuscript has simplified comparative analysis of different unsplinted attachment systems used in two implant mandibular overdentures to help clinicians choose correct system in such situation.