Assessment of patient’s centered prosthetic maintenance of two different materials and design of mandibular fixed hybrid prostheses | ||||
| Ain Shams Dental Journal | ||||
| Volume 35, Issue 3, September 2024, Page 24-32 PDF (1.2 MB) | ||||
| Document Type: Original articles | ||||
| DOI: 10.21608/asdj.2024.313043.1450 | ||||
 View on SCiNiTO | ||||
| Authors | ||||
lamiaa farouk zaki   1; Omar Abbas Al-Sadat 2
| ||||
| 1oral & maxillofacial prosthodontics, faculty of dentistry ,Ain shams university | ||||
| 2Oral and Maxillofacial Prosthodontics,Faculty of Dentistry, Ain Shams University | ||||
| Abstract | ||||
| Aim: Compare the prosthetic maintenance between two different framework materials for full arch mandibular fixed prostheses (zirconia over titanium bar and full arch zirconia) during a one-year follow-up. Materials and Methods: Fourteen completely edentulous participants were selected. For each patient, six implants were installed in the mandible using a surgical guide. Participants were randomly divided into two groups. Group A: Mandibular fixed implant -supported prosthesis was constructed using zirconia over titanium bar framework and Group B: Mandibular fixed implant-supported prosthesis was constructed using full arch zirconia. The prosthetic complications were recorded from the time of prosthesis insertion for one year. Results: It was found that there was no significant difference between both groups regarding the incidence of different prosthetic complications. Conclusion: Within the limitation of this study, the type of prosthesis material either full-arch zirconia or zirconia over a titanium bar has relatively similar impact on the frequency of maintenance of prosthetic components. | ||||
| Keywords | ||||
| full arch; zirconia; titanium bar; passivity; screw-retained | ||||
|
Statistics Article View: 203 PDF Download: 200 |
||||
