الفهرس 
IntroductionOnly 14 pages are availabe for public view
 |  | from | 164 |  |  |
| | | from | 164 | | |
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to compare the degree of marginal bone loss between two implant-retained Bar mandibular overdentures made with two different impression materials (Vinyl Polyether Silicone versus extra silicone).
Methodology:
Twenty patients were chosen from the Prosthodontic Department’s outpatient clinic at Minia University’s Faculty of Oral and Dental Medicine. With a mean age of 58 years, all patients were entirely edentulous and devoid of any systemic disorders that might impair bone quality or post-operative healing. Patients were placed into four equal groups of five each.
group (I): Divided into two subgroups
group (I.A): 5 patients receive two implants with bar retained mandibular overdenture opposing maxillary full denture using Vinyl Polyether Silioxaine (VPES) final impression procedure with splinting technique.
group (I.B): 5 patients receive two implants with bar retained mandibular overdenture opposing maxillary full denture using polyvinyl silicone final imprint procedure with splinting technique.
group (II): Divided into two subgroups
group (II.A): 5 patients receive two implants, a bar-retained mandibular overdenture, and a maxillary full denture, using a final impression process using Vinyl Polyether Silioxaine (VPES) and no splinting.
group (II.B): 5 patients receive two implants with bar retained mandibular overdenture opposing maxillary full denture using polyvinyl silicone final impression method without splinting.
The preoperative diagnostic phase was carried out using CBCT. A radiographic template, which is a replica of the current authorised denture, is created. For implant implantation, the canine area (inter-foraminal region) was chosen. Prepared a 3-D computer-guided surgical template, In this investigation, screw-shaped, self-tapping root form implants were employed. Transmucosal abutments were put onto the implants to form a typical gingival collar. Hygienic screws were used to prevent the entry of food debris or saliva.
Impression copings were affixed to the implants to ensure that they were precisely positioned on the master cast. The next study divided the participants into four groups (two with impression copings splinted and two without).
The open tray approach was used, with two slots above the canine area to ensure that the imprint copings expansion was not obstructed. The use of an acrylic resin specific tray for impression production by two different impression materials, which also differ in whether or not splinting is used.
For castable cylinders, ready-made or custom-fabricated bar patterns are attached and cast as one unit, bar prepared, metal bar rescan again, and the retaining framework design is closely adapted into the metal bar for future milling in BIOHPP material.
The amount of marginal bone loss, including bone height changes surrounding the implants, was assessed radiographically using the parallel cone technique at the time of denture insertion3, 6, 9, and 12 months later.
Results: The current investigation found a statistically significant difference between transfer coping splinting and imprint type by Vinyl Polyether Silioxaine and polyvinyl silicone.
Within the limitations of the present study it may be concluded that:
1. Impression splinting allows for passive repair with no prosthesis movement and prevents screw loosening.
2. The rigidity of the Vinyl Polyether Silioxaine impression material contributes to the creation of passive repair.
3. Does the absence of splinting of impression material alter the degree of bone loss?
Recommendations:
Any implant impression must be splinted, and the use of novel hard impression materials improves passivity, reducing bone loss.