Different Implant Supported Modalities of Completely Edentulous Mandible
Elbelacy, H., Khalil, M., Elboraey, A. (2024). Different Implant Supported Modalities of Completely Edentulous Mandible. EKB Journal Management System, 70(1), 507-517. doi: 10.21608/edj.2023.246435.2769
Heba Elbelacy; Maie F. Khalil; Asmaa N. Elboraey. "Different Implant Supported Modalities of Completely Edentulous Mandible". EKB Journal Management System, 70, 1, 2024, 507-517. doi: 10.21608/edj.2023.246435.2769
Elbelacy, H., Khalil, M., Elboraey, A. (2024). 'Different Implant Supported Modalities of Completely Edentulous Mandible', EKB Journal Management System, 70(1), pp. 507-517. doi: 10.21608/edj.2023.246435.2769
Elbelacy, H., Khalil, M., Elboraey, A. Different Implant Supported Modalities of Completely Edentulous Mandible. EKB Journal Management System, 2024; 70(1): 507-517. doi: 10.21608/edj.2023.246435.2769

Different Implant Supported Modalities of Completely Edentulous Mandible

Egyptian Dental Journal
Volume 70, Issue 1 - Serial Number 4, January 2024, Page 507-517  XML PDF (944.84 K)
Document Type: Original Article
DOI: 10.21608/edj.2023.246435.2769
View on SCiNiTO View on SCiNiTO
Authors
Heba Elbelacy email orcid 1; Maie F. Khalilorcid 2; Asmaa N. Elboraeyorcid 3
1Lecturer, Removable Prosthodontic Dep, Misr University for Science and TechnologyMisr for science and technology university
2Researcher,Fixed and Removable Prosthodontic Dep. Oral and Dental Research institute, National Research Centre, Cairo, Egypt
3Associate Professor, Fixed and Removable Prosthodontic Dep. Oral and Dental Research institute, National Research Centre, Cairo, Egypt.
Abstract
Background/aim:The use of mini-implants and short implants have increased recently for treatments of patients with atrophic ridges or to over the anatomic limitationof implant insertion. However, the clinical effectiveness of short implants versus conventional implants or mini-implantswas not fully considered. Therefore, the aim of this research was to assess the marginal bone loss around short implants, mini-implants and conventional implants radiographically.
Materials and Methods: twenty-one completely edentulous patients were randomly categorized into three groups according to the type and distribution of dental implants inserted into the mandible. Group I:received 4 mini dental implants, Group II: received,two conventional implants in the interforaminal area, while Group III:received 2 mini dental implants in the lateral incisor/ canine area and 2 wide short implants in the first molar area.Marginal bone loss was assessed around the dental implants by cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) at denture insertion, after 6 and 12 months. Data was collected and statistical analysed by One Way ANOVA followed by Tukey`s Post Hoc test. TheSignificant difference was set at P<0.05.
Keywords
Mini- implants; short implants; implant supported overdenture; implant distribution
Statistics
Article View: 88
PDF Download: 52