Article citationsMore >>

Amaral CF, Pinheiro MA, de Moraes M, Rodrigues Garcia RCM. Psychometric Analysis and Masticatory Efficiency of Elderly People with Single-Implant Overdentures. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2018 Nov/Dec; 33(6): 1383-1389.

has been cited by the following article:

Article

Clinical and Radiographic Comparison Between Mandibular Implant Surveyed Crowns Retained Removable Partial Denture Versus Mandibular Implant Retained Overdenture

1Assistant Professor of Fixed Prosthodontic, Faculty of Dentistry, Taif University, Taif, KSA

2Assistant professor of prosthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Tanta University, Tanta, Egypt

3Assistant professor of Removable Prosthodontic, Faculty of Dentistry, Taif University, Taif, KSA


International Journal of Dental Sciences and Research. 2021, Vol. 9 No. 2, 49-60
DOI: 10.12691/ijdsr-9-2-6
Copyright © 2021 Science and Education Publishing

Cite this paper:
Nouf Al Humayyani, Fahad K Alwthinani, Mohamed Y. Abdelfattah. Clinical and Radiographic Comparison Between Mandibular Implant Surveyed Crowns Retained Removable Partial Denture Versus Mandibular Implant Retained Overdenture. International Journal of Dental Sciences and Research. 2021; 9(2):49-60. doi: 10.12691/ijdsr-9-2-6.

Correspondence to: Mohamed  Y. Abdelfattah, Assistant professor of prosthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Tanta University, Tanta, Egypt. Email: m.yousef@tudent.org

Abstract

Aim: To evaluate the implant surveyed crowns performance as abutments retaining removable partial denture (IC-RPDs) in comparison with implant overdentures (IODs). Materials and Methods: 12 totally edentulous male individuals allocated in 2 categories; Group I (n=6): planned to receive (IC-RPDs) and Group II (n=6): received (IODs). For both groups, routine surgical and prosthodontics steps for implant placement were followed. Clinical evaluations included implant survival rates(SR), percussion(P), probing depth(PD), plaque index (PI) in addition to the VAS satisfaction of function and esthetics of the two treatment modalities. Radiographic evaluations expressed differences in marginal bone heights (MBH). Evaluations are performed at insertion time of final prostheses, and after 3,6,9,and 12 months. Results were analyzed using Nonparametric ANOVA . Two-way ANOVA was used to compare Group I &II. Results: No statistically significant differences were founded between IC-RPDs and IODs regarding survival rates (SR) in spite that the IC-RPD group achieved 100% , and IODs group showed 83.3%. high percussion sounds were perceived during all follow-up intervals reflecting successful osseointegration. Similarly, non-significant differences were observed at all follow-up intervals between the two groups regarding Probing Depth, Plaque Index, and Marginal Bone Heights. Esthetic and functional outcomes were considerably enhanced following IC-RPDs or IODs treatments. clasp loosening, and attachment dislodgement were the apparent mechanical problems with IC-RPDs and IODs groups respectively. Conclusion: Under the limitations, placing implants in the front mandibular area to serve either as abutments retaining class I Kennedy Removable Partial Denture or Implant Overdentures might represent efficient treatment modalities , particularly for anatomical or economic conditions that limit placing of more numbers of implants in more posterior locations.

Keywords