Four-year assessment of masticatory function in mandibular overdenture wearers: A randomised clinical trial comparing two to four implants to retain the prosthesis.

BACKGROUND: Limited data exist on the mid- to long-term masticatory capacity of mandibular overdenture (IOD) wearers, particularly regarding the use of posterior implants to retention. OBJECTIVES: To periodically evaluate mastication of IOD wearers, comparing the effectiveness of two to four implants to retain the prosthesis. METHODS: In a randomised controlled clinical trial, 20 complete edentulous patients (14 women), aged 51-84 years (mean age 69.1 ± 9.6), received new bimaxillary complete dentures (CD). After adaptation, baseline measurements of masticatory performance (X50) and swallowing threshold were conducted using the sieving method. Patients were then randomly assigned to groups: control (two intra-foraminal regular implants) and experimental (two intra-foraminal regular implants and two extra-short posterior implants) (n = 10 each). After 4 months, implants were splinted, and a new mandibular IOD was fabricated with bar/clip retention. Mastication was reassessed after 6, 12, and 48 months, and data analysed with repeated measures ANOVA and Sidak's post hoc (α = 0.05). RESULTS: Despite a loss of two patients per group, masticatory performance significantly improved after mandibular IOD installation (p = .031) in both groups (p = .670). A second improvement was observed after 6 months (p = .027), with no subsequent changes (p > .05). Swallowing threshold improvements were noted with IOD, and no discernible differences between groups were observed (p > .05). CONCLUSION: Masticatory function significantly improved after mandibular IOD installation, with the number of implants demonstrating minimal influence. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: The present study was not registered in a public database, as mandated. It is important to note that the recommendation for registration was initiated in 2017 by the Committee of Medical Journal Editors, while patient inclusion in the research took place in 2016. Given that the data presented in this manuscript cover a follow-up period of up to 4 years post-surgical intervention, delayed registration was not feasible.

Race in public health dentistry: a critical review of the literature.

OBJECTIVE: To carry out a critical review of the literature on the use of race, color, and ethnicity in the field of public health dentistry. METHODS: A literature search was conducted in MEDLINE via PubMed for articles published between 2014 and 2019. Using a data extraction form, we collected information on (1) bibliographic characteristics of the selected papers; (2) race, color, and ethnicity of the study participants and their sociodemographic profiles; and (3) the extent to which the original publications followed the recommendations by Kaplan and Bennett (2003) on the use of race, color, or ethnicity in biomedical research. RESULTS: Our initial search identified 2,032 articles, 53 of which were selected for full-text examination and assessment following pre-established eligibility criteria. Around 60% (n = 32) of the included studies did not justify the use of race, color, or ethnicity in their analyses, and 9% (n = 5) took these variables as indicators of the participants' genetic makeup. On the other hand, 68% (n = 36) of the reviewed papers considered race, color, and ethnicity as risk markers - not risk factors - for adverse oral health outcomes, whereas 80% (n = 42) adjusted racial/ethnic inequities for a range of socioeconomic and demographic factors in statistical models. Only one study (2%) explicitly took race, color, or ethnicity as a contextually dependent dimension of the participants' identities. CONCLUSION: Our findings indicate that research on oral health inequities is often based on reductionist and stigmatizing conceptions of race, color, or ethnicity. Such harmful misconceptions should be replaced with anti-racist narratives in order to effectively address racial oral health inequities.

Race in public health dentistry: a critical review of the literature

ABSTRACT OBJECTIVE To carry out a critical review of the literature on the use of race, color, and ethnicity in the field of public health dentistry. METHODS A literature search was conducted in MEDLINE via PubMed for articles published between 2014 and 2019. Using a data extraction form, we collected information on (1) bibliographic characteristics of the selected papers; (2) race, color, and ethnicity of the study participants and their sociodemographic profiles; and (3) the extent to which the original publications followed the recommendations by Kaplan and Bennett (2003) on the use of race, color, or ethnicity in biomedical research. RESULTS Our initial search identified 2,032 articles, 53 of which were selected for full-text examination and assessment following pre-established eligibility criteria. Around 60% (n = 32) of the included studies did not justify the use of race, color, or ethnicity in their analyses, and 9% (n = 5) took these variables as indicators of the participants' genetic makeup. On the other hand, 68% (n = 36) of the reviewed papers considered race, color, and ethnicity as risk markers - not risk factors - for adverse oral health outcomes, whereas 80% (n = 42) adjusted racial/ethnic inequities for a range of socioeconomic and demographic factors in statistical models. Only one study (2%) explicitly took race, color, or ethnicity as a contextually dependent dimension of the participants' identities. CONCLUSION Our findings indicate that research on oral health inequities is often based on reductionist and stigmatizing conceptions of race, color, or ethnicity. Such harmful misconceptions should be replaced with anti-racist narratives in order to effectively address racial oral health inequities.