Comparison Between Flexible And Skeletal Implant Supported Mandibular Removable Partial Overdenture In Kennedy Class I Situation

Mohamed Aboshama, Mostafa Abd El rady, A. Abdullah, Mostafa Abosrie
{"title":"Comparison Between Flexible And Skeletal Implant Supported Mandibular Removable Partial Overdenture In Kennedy Class I Situation","authors":"Mohamed Aboshama, Mostafa Abd El rady, A. Abdullah, Mostafa Abosrie","doi":"10.21608/aadj.2022.234704","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Aim: to compare between the flexible implant supported removable partial over denture and skeletal implant supported removable partial over denture in accordance of clinical parameters and masticatory efficiency for both abutment and implant. Subjects and Methods: ten female patients were selected with partially edentulous mandible Kennedy class I; two implants inserted in the second molar area bilaterally. After healing stage of implant insertion site, these patients divided into two groups group A: (flexible partial denture constructed and supported by the implants) and group B:(skeletal RPD) constructed and supported by the implants. Clinical parameters for both the abutment and the implant have been evaluated immediately after insertion of partial denture and after 4,8,12 months of loading the RPD including gingival index, plaque index, and pocket depth. Masticatory efficiency for the prosthesis also is evaluated. data collected and statistically analyzed. Results: Clinical parameters for both the abutment and the implant showed variant statistically significant difference between (Group A) and (Group B) in base line and 4 ,8 and 12 m readings . While in Masticatory efficiency for both the abutment and the implant, no statistically significant difference was found Between (Group A) and (Group B) in all time interval. Conclusion: It was found that there was difference in gingival index, plaque index and pocket depth between the two groups, which was negative in-group (A) in compares to group (B) for both the implants and abutments. Also, for both types, there was no difference in the result of masticatory efficiency. related prevention policies. (2) Various types of prosthetic options are available for the rehabilitation of the partially edentulous condition to restore the missing teeth, including","PeriodicalId":136230,"journal":{"name":"Al-Azhar Assiut Dental Journal","volume":"51 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-04-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Al-Azhar Assiut Dental Journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.21608/aadj.2022.234704","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Aim: to compare between the flexible implant supported removable partial over denture and skeletal implant supported removable partial over denture in accordance of clinical parameters and masticatory efficiency for both abutment and implant. Subjects and Methods: ten female patients were selected with partially edentulous mandible Kennedy class I; two implants inserted in the second molar area bilaterally. After healing stage of implant insertion site, these patients divided into two groups group A: (flexible partial denture constructed and supported by the implants) and group B:(skeletal RPD) constructed and supported by the implants. Clinical parameters for both the abutment and the implant have been evaluated immediately after insertion of partial denture and after 4,8,12 months of loading the RPD including gingival index, plaque index, and pocket depth. Masticatory efficiency for the prosthesis also is evaluated. data collected and statistically analyzed. Results: Clinical parameters for both the abutment and the implant showed variant statistically significant difference between (Group A) and (Group B) in base line and 4 ,8 and 12 m readings . While in Masticatory efficiency for both the abutment and the implant, no statistically significant difference was found Between (Group A) and (Group B) in all time interval. Conclusion: It was found that there was difference in gingival index, plaque index and pocket depth between the two groups, which was negative in-group (A) in compares to group (B) for both the implants and abutments. Also, for both types, there was no difference in the result of masticatory efficiency. related prevention policies. (2) Various types of prosthetic options are available for the rehabilitation of the partially edentulous condition to restore the missing teeth, including
下颌可摘局部覆盖义齿与柔性种植义齿在Kennedy I类情况下的比较
目的:比较柔性种植支撑可摘局部覆盖义齿与骨骼种植支撑可摘局部覆盖义齿的临床参数及基牙和种植体的咀嚼效率。对象和方法:选择10例女性部分无牙颌Kennedy I类患者;双侧第二磨牙区植入两颗种植体。在种植体植入部位愈合后,将患者分为两组:A组(由种植体构建并支撑的柔性局部义齿)和B组(由种植体构建并支撑的骨骼RPD)。在植入局部义齿后立即评估基牙和种植体的临床参数,并在加载RPD 4、8、12个月后评估,包括牙龈指数、菌斑指数和牙袋深度。此外,还对义肢的咀嚼效率进行了评估。数据收集和统计分析。结果:基牙和种植体的临床参数在基线和4、8、12 m读数上(A组)与(B组)差异有统计学意义。而基牙和种植体的咀嚼效率,A组和B组在所有时间间隔内均无统计学差异。结论:两组患者的牙龈指数、菌斑指数和牙袋深度均有差异,A组种植体和基牙组均为负。此外,两种类型的咀嚼效率的结果也没有差异。相关的预防策略。(2)在部分无牙的情况下,修复缺失的牙齿有多种选择,包括
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信