Prosthesis Durability
Conditions
Brief summary
the evaluation of patient satisfaction of All on-4 versus All on-3 implant treatment concepts rehabilitation of atrophied mandibular ridge.
Detailed description
Patients will be classified into 2 groups according to the implant treatment concept they received: * Group 1 (control group); included patients who received All on 4 implant-supported fixed restoration. The patients received 2 inclined implants anterior to the mental foramina and 2 vertical implants in the lateral incisor/canine areas. * Group 2 (test group); included patients who received All on 3 implant-supported fixed restoration. The patients received 2 inclined implants anterior to the mental foramina and 1 vertical implant in the midline of the mandible.
Interventions
DEVICEimplant supported fixed full arch prosthesis
the patients will receive screw-retained cast metal-ceramic fixed prostheses that replace lost gingival tissues with pink porcelain.
Sponsors
Mansoura University
Study design
Allocation
RANDOMIZED
Intervention model
PARALLEL
Primary purpose
TREATMENT
Masking
SINGLE (Subject)
Intervention model description
Patients will be classified into 2 groups according to the implant treatment concept they received: * Group 1 (control group); included 3 patients who received All on 4 implant-supported fixed restoration. The patients received 2 inclined implants anterior to the mental foramina and 2 vertical implants in the lateral incisor/canine areas. * Group 2 (test group); included 3 patients who received All on 3 implant-supported fixed restoration. The patients received 2 inclined implants anterior to the mental foramina and 1 vertical implant in the midline of the mandible.
Eligibility
Sex/Gender
ALL
Age
45 Years to 65 Years
Healthy volunteers
Yes
Inclusion criteria
* 1\. All patients already have implants inserted in their mandibular ridges According to the All on 4 or All on 3 concepts. 2\. They were healthy, free from any systemic diseases relating to bone resorption such as uncontrolled diabetes or osteoporosis. This was achieved through medical history and clinical examination by the physician. 3\. All patients have sufficient inter-arch space. 4. All patients are of angle class I maxillo-mandibular relationships. 5. All patients had maxillary conventional complete dentures.
Exclusion criteria
1\. Any neuromuscular disorders 2. Uncooperative patients \-
Design outcomes
Primary
| Measure | Time frame | Description |
|---|---|---|
| patient satisfaction | one year | Patient satisfaction was evaluated using a questionnaire based on visual analog scale (VAS) |
| crestal bone loss | Two year | bone loss was measured around the implants in mm |
Countries
Egypt
Outcome results
None listed