Cargando…

Implant Supported Distal Extension over Denture Retained by Two Types of Attachments. A Comparative Radiographic Study by Cone Beam Computed Tomography

BACKGROUND: This study was conducted to compare and evaluate the effect of two different attachments (locator attachment and ball and socket [B&S] attachment) on implants and natural abutments supporting structures, in cases of limited inter-arch spaces in mandibular Kennedy Class I implant supp...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Mahrous, Ahmed I, Aldawash, Hussien A, Soliman, Tarek A, Banasr, Fahad H, Abdelwahed, Ahmed
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Dentmedpub Research and Printing Co 2015
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4441237/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26028894
_version_ 1782372763045986304
author Mahrous, Ahmed I
Aldawash, Hussien A
Soliman, Tarek A
Banasr, Fahad H
Abdelwahed, Ahmed
author_facet Mahrous, Ahmed I
Aldawash, Hussien A
Soliman, Tarek A
Banasr, Fahad H
Abdelwahed, Ahmed
author_sort Mahrous, Ahmed I
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: This study was conducted to compare and evaluate the effect of two different attachments (locator attachment and ball and socket [B&S] attachment) on implants and natural abutments supporting structures, in cases of limited inter-arch spaces in mandibular Kennedy Class I implant supported removable partial over dentures by measuring the bone height changes through the cone beam radiographic technology. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Two implants were positioned in the first or second molar area following the two-stage surgical protocol. Two equal groups were divided ten for each: Group I: Sides were the placed implants restored by the locator attachment. Group II: The other sides, implants were restored by B&S attachment. Evaluation of the implants and main abutments supporting structures of each group was done at the time of removable partial over denture insertion, 6, 12 and 18 months by measuring the bone height changes using cone beam computed tomography. RESULTS: Implants with locator attachment showed marginal bone height better effects on implants and main abutments supporting structures. CONCLUSION: Implants restored by locator attachment shows better effects on bone of both main natural abutments and implant than those restored with ball and socket.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-4441237
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2015
publisher Dentmedpub Research and Printing Co
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-44412372015-07-01 Implant Supported Distal Extension over Denture Retained by Two Types of Attachments. A Comparative Radiographic Study by Cone Beam Computed Tomography Mahrous, Ahmed I Aldawash, Hussien A Soliman, Tarek A Banasr, Fahad H Abdelwahed, Ahmed J Int Oral Health Original Research BACKGROUND: This study was conducted to compare and evaluate the effect of two different attachments (locator attachment and ball and socket [B&S] attachment) on implants and natural abutments supporting structures, in cases of limited inter-arch spaces in mandibular Kennedy Class I implant supported removable partial over dentures by measuring the bone height changes through the cone beam radiographic technology. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Two implants were positioned in the first or second molar area following the two-stage surgical protocol. Two equal groups were divided ten for each: Group I: Sides were the placed implants restored by the locator attachment. Group II: The other sides, implants were restored by B&S attachment. Evaluation of the implants and main abutments supporting structures of each group was done at the time of removable partial over denture insertion, 6, 12 and 18 months by measuring the bone height changes using cone beam computed tomography. RESULTS: Implants with locator attachment showed marginal bone height better effects on implants and main abutments supporting structures. CONCLUSION: Implants restored by locator attachment shows better effects on bone of both main natural abutments and implant than those restored with ball and socket. Dentmedpub Research and Printing Co 2015-05 /pmc/articles/PMC4441237/ /pubmed/26028894 Text en Copyright: © Journal of International Oral Health http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0 This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 3.0 Unported, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Original Research
Mahrous, Ahmed I
Aldawash, Hussien A
Soliman, Tarek A
Banasr, Fahad H
Abdelwahed, Ahmed
Implant Supported Distal Extension over Denture Retained by Two Types of Attachments. A Comparative Radiographic Study by Cone Beam Computed Tomography
title Implant Supported Distal Extension over Denture Retained by Two Types of Attachments. A Comparative Radiographic Study by Cone Beam Computed Tomography
title_full Implant Supported Distal Extension over Denture Retained by Two Types of Attachments. A Comparative Radiographic Study by Cone Beam Computed Tomography
title_fullStr Implant Supported Distal Extension over Denture Retained by Two Types of Attachments. A Comparative Radiographic Study by Cone Beam Computed Tomography
title_full_unstemmed Implant Supported Distal Extension over Denture Retained by Two Types of Attachments. A Comparative Radiographic Study by Cone Beam Computed Tomography
title_short Implant Supported Distal Extension over Denture Retained by Two Types of Attachments. A Comparative Radiographic Study by Cone Beam Computed Tomography
title_sort implant supported distal extension over denture retained by two types of attachments. a comparative radiographic study by cone beam computed tomography
topic Original Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4441237/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26028894
work_keys_str_mv AT mahrousahmedi implantsupporteddistalextensionoverdentureretainedbytwotypesofattachmentsacomparativeradiographicstudybyconebeamcomputedtomography
AT aldawashhussiena implantsupporteddistalextensionoverdentureretainedbytwotypesofattachmentsacomparativeradiographicstudybyconebeamcomputedtomography
AT solimantareka implantsupporteddistalextensionoverdentureretainedbytwotypesofattachmentsacomparativeradiographicstudybyconebeamcomputedtomography
AT banasrfahadh implantsupporteddistalextensionoverdentureretainedbytwotypesofattachmentsacomparativeradiographicstudybyconebeamcomputedtomography
AT abdelwahedahmed implantsupporteddistalextensionoverdentureretainedbytwotypesofattachmentsacomparativeradiographicstudybyconebeamcomputedtomography