Prosthetic complications and patient satisfaction with maxillary polyether ether ketone hybrid prosthesis veneered with acrylic or composite resin for patients rehabilitated by “All on four” concept | ||||
| Egyptian Dental Journal | ||||
| Article 1, Volume 67, Issue 2 - Serial Number 4, April 2021, Page 1333-1343 PDF (1.1 MB) | ||||
| Document Type: Original Article | ||||
| DOI: 10.21608/edj.2021.54991.1422 | ||||
 View on SCiNiTO | ||||
| Authors | ||||
Dina El talawy   1; Samer Ali2
| ||||
| 1Associate Professor, Department of Removable Prosthodontics, College of Oral and Dental Surgery, Misr University for Science and Technology, Egypt. | ||||
| 2Associate Professor, Department of Removable Prosthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, October University for Modern Science and Arts (MSA), Egypt. | ||||
| Abstract | ||||
| Purpose: To evaluate prosthetic complications and patient satisfaction with maxillary polyether ether ketone (PEEK) hybrid prosthesis veneered with acrylic or composite resin for individuals restored by “All on four” implants Materials and methods: Six patients with edentulous maxilla opposing mandibular implant overdentures had four implants in-between maxillary antrums according to the All on four concept and full arch PEEK fixed restoration veneered with acrylic resin (control group). The study group comprised six patients who had four implants using the All on four protocol and full arch PEEK fixed restoration veneered with composite resin. For both groups, prosthetic complications and patient satisfaction using visual analogue scale were measures after one year. Results: There were no prosthesis fractures, cylinder fracture, abutment fracture, prosthetic screw fractures occurred in both groups. Crown fracture occurred significantly more in the composite group compared to the acrylic group (p=.046).. The composite group showed significant higher overall chewing and esthetics compared to the acrylic group. On the other hand, the acrylic group showed significant higher ease of cleaning than the composite group. No difference in mouth comfort and speech between groups was noted. Conclusion: Both acrylic and composite veneers for full arch PEEK fixed restoration can be used successfully for rehabilitation of patients with maxillary All on four concept as they achieve favorable prosthetic and patient satisfaction out comes. However, composite veneers may be advantageous in term of satisfaction with chewing and esthetics and acrylic veneers may be advantageous in terms of crown fractures and ease of cleaning. | ||||
| Keywords | ||||
| Prosthetic complications; patient satisfaction; polyether ether ketone hybrid prosthesis; “All on four” concept | ||||
|
Statistics Article View: 340 PDF Download: 473 |
||||
