Tanta Dental Journal

ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Year
: 2016  |  Volume : 13  |  Issue : 3  |  Page : 157--161

Comparative study of two types of attachments for mandibular implant-retained single complete overdenture


Maha M Abo Shady, Ibrahim R Eltorky, Zeinb M Abd Eaal 
 Prosthodontics Department, Faculty of Dentistry, Tanta University, Tanta, Egypt

Correspondence Address:
Maha M Abo Shady
Prosthodontics Department, Faculty of Dentistry, Tanta University, Tanta
Egypt

Objective: The aim of this work is to compare between balls versus locator attachment systems for mandibular implant-retained single complete overdenture, as regards to clinical and radiographic evaluation. Materials and methods: Fourteen patients had lower edentulous jaw opposing almost natural dentition in the upper jaw was selected with their age ranging from 55 to 65 years. The patients were divided into two groups. Group I received single mandibular complete overdenture constructed over two implants, retained by ball attachments. Group II received single mandibular complete overdenture constructed over two implants, retained by locator attachments. Evaluation was carried out at regular appointments up to 1 year from time of loading of the implants. Each patient was presented to a questionnaire regarding retention, stability, comfort, chewing ability, esthetics, and speech. Clinically, the patients were evaluated as regards to gingival recession, pocket depth and implant stability. Radiographically, the patients were examined to determine the amount of marginal bone loss. Results: All fixtures were successfully osseointegrated all over the follow-up period. The results showed no significant difference in patient satisfaction between both groups (P = 0.827). Slight increase in the gingival recession was found in both groups throughout the time of observations, with no significant difference between both groups (P = 0.166). There was insignificant increased of the probing depth around the implants in both groups (P = 0.600). There was insignificant increase in implant stability in both groups throughout the follow-up periods (P = 0.839). No significant differences in bone loss were observed between both groups throughout the follow-up periods (P = 0.524 and <0.05). Conclusion: Two implants were sufficient to retain a single mandibular complete overdenture opposing maxillary natural dentition without hazardous effect on the implants.


How to cite this article:
Abo Shady MM, Eltorky IR, Abd Eaal ZM. Comparative study of two types of attachments for mandibular implant-retained single complete overdenture.Tanta Dent J 2016;13:157-161


How to cite this URL:
Abo Shady MM, Eltorky IR, Abd Eaal ZM. Comparative study of two types of attachments for mandibular implant-retained single complete overdenture. Tanta Dent J [serial online] 2016 [cited 2022 May 18 ];13:157-161
Available from: http://www.tmj.eg.net/article.asp?issn=1687-8574;year=2016;volume=13;issue=3;spage=157;epage=161;aulast=Abo;type=0