الفهرس 
Flapless implant surgeryOnly 14 pages are availabe for public view
 |  | from | 151 |  |  |
| | | from | 151 | | |
Abstract
The present study was designed to evaluate and compare two types of attachments, the magnet attachment versus the equator attachment used with complete mandibular over-denture assisted by two implant in the canine area,study was performed on fourteen edentulous patients free from any systemic diseases.At the beginning conventional complete denture were constructed for all patients that divided into two groups 7 in each. The first group patients received complete mandibular over-denture assisted by magnet attachment.The Second group patients received complete mandibular over-denture assisted by equator attachment.CBCT was performed for each patient by radiographic stent constructe by aid of duplicated denture and gutta-percha radio-opaque markers in the canine area. Implants were installed according to flapless technique then immediately loaded after measuring implant stability by Osstell ISQ attachments were connected to implants and picked up directly inside the patient mouth with cold cure acrylic resin.Clinical, radiographic evaluation and patient satisfaction were performed for each patient at denture insertion, 3, 6 and 12 months later regarding to modified plaque index, peri implant, probing depth, gingival recession and marginal bone loss . Modified plaque index was measured by measuring plaque attached to the surface of implant using disclosing tablets. Probing depth was measured using plastic periodontal probe from gingival margin of implant to the depth of the sulcus. Gingival recession was measured as the distance from the top of the abutment to the gingival margin. Patients satisfaction was evaluated by questionnaire by asking the patients to rate their perception, marginal bone loss was measured by digital panorama using liner measurement and soft package program.All implants were successfully osseointegrated, no implants or prosthesis had failed. The results revealed insignificant difference between the two groups in modified plaque index, peri-implant probing depth, gingival recession, patient satisfaction and marginal bone loss.