Completely Edentulous
Conditions
Keywords
Dental implants, Maintenance/standards, Overdenture
Brief summary
The goal of this randomized clinical trial is to compare and assess the prosthetic maintenance of two implant-retained mandibular overdentures reinforced with PEKK and Co-Cr frameworks after twelve months. Twenty-four participants were randomly assigned to two groups: Group I received a mandibular implant-retained overdenture reinforced with a Co-Cr framework, while Group II received a mandibular implant-retained overdenture reinforced with a PEKK framework. Also, both groups were rehabilitated with a maxillary complete removable denture.
Detailed description
Twenty-four participants with edentulous maxillary and mandibular ridges underwent meticulous selection, with two implants placed in the mandibular canine areas through a two-stage surgical technique facilitated by a radiographic and surgical stent. Following this, patients were provided with maxillary and mandibular complete removable dentures relined with soft liners. After the subsequent three-month osseointegration period, ball attachments were introduced. Patients were randomly allocated to two groups based on the type of prosthesis they received. Group I received mandibular implant-retained overdenture reinforced with the Co-Cr framework, while Group II received mandibular implant-retained overdenture reinforced with the PEKK framework, both groups received complete removable dentures for the maxillary arch. The assessment of prosthetic maintenance for mandibular implant-retained overdentures in both groups was conducted twelve months post-denture insertion.
Interventions
DEVICETwo implant -retained overdenture reinforced with Co-Cr framework
The intervention is made from polymethylmethacrylate reinforced with cobalt chromium ( Co-Cr) framework.
DEVICETwo implant -retained overdenture reinforced with PEEK framework
The intervention is made from polymethylmethacrylate reinforced with Polyetherketoneketone ( PEEK) framework.
Sponsors
Ain Shams University
Study design
Allocation
RANDOMIZED
Intervention model
PARALLEL
Primary purpose
TREATMENT
Masking
DOUBLE (Subject, Outcomes Assessor)
Eligibility
Sex/Gender
MALE
Age
50 Years to 70 Years
Healthy volunteers
Yes
Inclusion criteria
* Age range between 50-70 years old. * Completely edentulous patients * Systemically free from any disease that contraindicates implant placement. * A minimum of 12 -15 millimeters of bone height and 6 mm bone width at canine areas diagnosed from the pre-operative cone beam CT. * Sufficient inter-arch space (15mm) to accommodate the mandibular implant-retained overdentures.
Exclusion criteria
* Patients with bone or mucosal diseases. * Heavy smokers. * Patients with uncontrolled metabolic disorders such as diabetes mellitus. * Patients with parafunctional habits. * Patients with conditions that might complicate the treatment, such as: severe gag reflex, limited mouth opening.
Design outcomes
Primary
| Measure | Time frame | Description |
|---|---|---|
| Evaluation of Prosthetic Maintenance of both types of implant retained overdentures | twelve months after delivery of implant retained overdenture | Evaluation of prosthetic maintenance for mandibular implant-retained overdentures in both groups was made after twelve months of overdenture insertion. Prosthetic maintenance is a checklist for the following aspects that were inspected regarding screw (screw loosening, screw fracture), attachments (wear, distortion, fracture, replacement), and overdentures (reline, remake, fracture, teeth wear, teeth separation, or fracture).maintenance for complication assed through counting frequency of incidence. The unit of measurement used is percentage. |
Countries
Egypt
Outcome results
None listed