Anita Visser1, Willem D Noorda2, Annemiek Linde2, Gerry M Raghoebar3, Arjan Vissink3. 1. Professor, Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, Groningen, the Netherlands. Electronic address: a.visser@umcg.nl. 2. Assistant Professor, Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, Groningen, the Netherlands. 3. Professor, Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, Groningen, the Netherlands.
Abstract
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.
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.
Authors: Rachael Y Jablonski; Benjamin J Veale; Trevor J Coward; Andrew J Keeling; Chris Bojke; Sue H Pavitt; Brian R Nattress Journal: J Prosthet Dent Date: 2021-02-10 Impact factor: 3.426