Fixed Dentures versus Milled Bar Overdentures Supported by Implants placed according to All On Four concept . Clinical Evaluation of Peri-Implant Tissue | ||||
| Mansoura Journal of Dentistry | ||||
| Article 11, Volume 6, Issue 4, October 2019, Page 49-53 PDF (317.24 K) | ||||
| Document Type: Original Article | ||||
| DOI: 10.21608/mjd.2019.199463 | ||||
 View on SCiNiTO | ||||
| Abstract | ||||
| Objectives: the aim of study is to compare soft tissue conditions, , mucositis, and peri-implantitis for implants supporting bar-retained overdentures and fixed denture placed on implant according to the All On Four concept Materials and methods: Six edentulous patients with or without complete denture were selected, each patient received four implants in the mandiable; 2 implants in canine area and 2 implants in second premolar area. Three patients received implant supported screw-retrained fixed prosthesis and the other three patients received a milled-bar overdenture, clinical evaluation of the mandiabuler dentures in terms of plaque index, gingival index, pocket depth ,width of keratnized mucosa and implant stability quotient.. Results:There was a significant difference in PI between groups at T6(p=.048) only. No difference in plaque score between groups was noted at T0 and T3. MB recorded the higher plaque score than FP at T6. Plaque scores significantly increased with advance of time for FP (p=.048 and MB (p=.045). No significant difference in GI between observation times was noted for both groups.There was no significant difference in GI between groups at T3 and T6 (p>.05). There was no significant difference in Probing depth between groups at T0, T3 and T6 (p>.05).Probing significantly increased with advance of time for FP (p=.005) and MB (p < .008).There was a significant difference in KM between groups at T6 only (p=.046). MB recorded Lower width of KM at T6 than FP Implant stability showed no significant difference between observation times for both groups Conclusion:Within the limitation of this short-term study, it could be concluded that both FP and MB could be used successfully for All-on-Four® implant rehabilitations of edentulous mandiable opposing complete denture in maxilla as both prostheses were associated with favorable clinical peri-implant tissue health after 6 months of prosthesis insertion. However, MB may be advantageous than FP in terms of reduced plaque accumulation and peri-implant bone preservation around anterior implants. | ||||
|
Statistics Article View: 96 PDF Download: 104 |
||||
