الفهرس 
IntroductionOnly 14 pages are availabe for public view
 |  | from | 159 |  |  |
| | | from | 159 | | |
Abstract
Aim of the study: The aim of this study was clinical and radiographic evaluation ofmaxillary dentures supported by four implants inserted according to ‘All-on-FourConcept’ which opposing mandibular implant supported dentures. Materials and methods: Six patients with mandibular implant supportedoverdentures were selected, each patient received four implants in the maxilla; 2implants in canine area and 2 implants in second premolar area. Three patientsreceived implant supported screw-retrained fixed prosthesis and the other threepatients received a milled-bar overdenture, clinical and radiographic evaluation ofthe maxillary dentures in terms of plaque index, gingival index, pocket depth andimplant stability quotient. Radiographic evaluation will be performed in terms of Peri-implant alveolar bone loss using standardized periapical radiographs. Results: No significant difference in plaque scores between groups was noted at allimplant surfaces. For both groups, there was a significant difference of plaque scoresbetween peri-implant surfaces at T6 for anterior implants buccal site recorded thehighest scores, and distal site recorded the lowest. No significant difference ingingival scores between groups. No significant difference in pocket depth betweengroups for all implant surfaces at T0. At T6, fixed prosthesis (FP) recordedsignificant higher pocket depth than milled-bar (MB). For both groups, nosignificant difference of pocket depth between anterior and posterior implants wasnoted all peri-implant surfaces except distal site of MB at T6 and mesial, distal,buccal sites of FP at T6.At T6, periotest values (PTVs) of MB was significantly higherthan FP. Posterior implants recorded higher implant stability than anterior implantsfor both groups. FP recorded significant higher VBL than MB for anterior implant.No significant difference in VBL between groups was noted for posterior implants. Conclusion: Within the limitation of this short-term study, it could be concludedthat both fixed prosthesis and milled-bar could be used successfully for All-on-Four implant rehabilitations of edentulous maxilla opposing implant supported fixed prosthesis inthe mandible as both prostheses were associated with favorable clinical andradiographical peri-implant tissue health after 6 months of prosthesis insertion.However, MB may be advantageous than FP in terms of reduced plaqueaccumulation and peri-implant bone preservation around anterior implants.