Quadrilateral versus bilateral linear bar designs for four Implant Assisted Complete Mandibular Overdenture regarding peri-implant Crestal bone loss (a randomized clinical trial) | ||||
| Al-Azhar Journal of Dental Science | ||||
| Volume 28, Issue 3, July 2025, Page 375-385 PDF (1.37 MB) | ||||
| Document Type: Original Article | ||||
| DOI: 10.21608/ajdsm.2025.357052.1606 | ||||
 View on SCiNiTO | ||||
| Authors | ||||
Mohamed Shady   1; Heba Wageh Abozaed 2; Hani zenhom Abo El-ezz3
| ||||
| 1Assistant professor, faculty of dentistry, Mansoura university, Egypt | ||||
| 2Associate professor of Prosthodontics, removable prosthodontics department. Faculty of dentistry. Mansoura university . Egypt | ||||
| 3lecturer, Periodontics Department, Faculty of Dentistry, Suez University, Suez, Egypt | ||||
| Abstract | ||||
| Purpose: This study aimed to evaluate two different bar designs for four implant-retained complete mandibular overdentures regarding peri-implant marginal bone loss. Methods: Twenty completely edentulous patients were selected for this study. Each patient received 4 implants in the mandibular canine and 1st molar areas and bar attachments. According to the bar design, all patients were classified into two equal groups: quadrilateral bar design (group I) and bilateral linear bar design (group II). Peri-implant marginal bone loss was evaluated immediately T0 and after 2 years T2 of insertion using a digital periapical X-ray. Results: at T0: there was a statistically insignificant difference between groups I&II, for group I the mean ±SD (0.13± 0.06), for group II the mean± SD (0.11± 0.07), and P-value 0.465. For posterior implants, there was a statistically insignificant difference between groups I&II, in group I the mean± SD (0.08± 0.08) in group II the mean± SD (0.09 ± 0.07), and P-value 0.808. At T2, for anterior implants, there was a statistically significant difference between groups I & II, in group I the mean± SD was (1.37± 0.13), and in group II the mean ± SD (1.24±0.14) and P-value was 0.02. For posterior implants, there was a statistically significant difference between groups I &II, in group I the mean± SD (1.64 ±0.14), and in group II the mean± SD (1.33± 0.16), and P-value 0.001. Conclusion: The bilateral linear distribution bar design is considered a better treatment option compared to the quadrilateral distribution regarding peri-implant marginal bone loss. | ||||
| Keywords | ||||
| KEYWORDS: Implant; implant-supported overdenture; bar attachment; peri-implant marginal bone loss | ||||
|
Statistics Article View: 30 PDF Download: 28 |
||||
