BioHPP Fixed Hybrid Prosthesis versus BioHPP Bar Overdenture as Treatment Options for Mandibular Edentulous Ridge (Prosthetic Maintenance and Patients’ Satisfaction) | ||
| Egyptian Dental Journal | ||
| Article 26, Volume 69, Issue 2 - Serial Number 4, April 2023, Pages 1453-1462 PDF (1.28 M) | ||
| Document Type: Original Article | ||
| DOI: 10.21608/edj.2023.191453.2425 | ||
| Authors | ||
| Hanan Al -Asad* 1; Hanan El Afandy2; Hebatallah Tarek Abdallah3; Magda Mohamed4 | ||
| 1PhD student Ain Shams University, lecturer in the prosthodontics department, Faculty of Dentistry, Aden University and University of Science and Technology, Aden, Yemen | ||
| 2Professor of Oral and Maxillofacial Prosthodontics Department, Faculty of Dentistry, Ain Shams University, Cairo, Egypt | ||
| 3Associate Professor of oral and maxillofacial Prosthodontics Department, Faculty of Dentistry, Ain Shams University Cairo, Egypt | ||
| 4Lecturer of oral and maxillofacial Prosthodontics Department, Faculty of Dentistry, Ain Shams University, Cairo | ||
| Abstract | ||
| Abstract: Aims: To evaluate prosthetic maintenance and patients’ satisfaction with the BioHPP (biocompatible high-performance polymer) was used as a skeletal substructure for the hybrid (implant fixed detachable) prosthesis versus the BioHPP bar supporting and retaining implant overdenture based on the visual analogue scale (VAS). Materials and Methods: twenty completely edentulous male patients were selected randomly from the outpatient clinic of the Department of Prosthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Ain Shams University; the patients complained of ill-fitting mandibular dentures due to ridge atrophy. All patients received new complete dentures; four inter foramina implants were placed using a surgical guide. Three months after osseointegration, the patients divided into two groups received CAD-CAM BioHPP framework hybrid prosthesis (group I) and BioHPP bar supported and retained overdenture (group II). The prosthetic complication was recorded, and the patient's subjective evaluation using a questionnaire based on the VAS includes five points for speech, chewing, comfort, aesthetics, oral hygiene, and general satisfaction was recorded. Results: Patient satisfaction revealed no difference between groups I and II at follow-up, with both groups highly satisfied after 12 months of follow-up. The general satisfaction for Group I was 4.43 ± 0.34, while that group II was 4.43 ± 0.50. Conclusion: The CAD/CAM BioHPP framework materials offer treatment modalities that are a good alternative for mandibular rehabilitation. Excellent levels of subjective patient satisfaction and prosthetic maintenance during the oral function were seen. | ||
| Keywords | ||
| Edentulous mandible; prosthetic maintenance; 4 implants; bar overdenture | ||
|
Statistics Article View: 484 PDF Download: 485 |
||
