الفهرس 
Considerations taken during single denture constructionOnly 14 pages are availabe for public view
 |  | from | 16 |  |  |
| | | from | 16 | | |
Abstract
In this study fourteen patients were selected from the outpatient clinic of Prosthodontic Department, Faculty of Dentistry, Ain Shams University.
Patients with completely edentulous lower ridges and fully dentate or partially dentate maxillary arch restored with fixed restorations were selected.
The selected patients were free from systemic diseases, temporomandibular joint disorders and with no history of para-functional habits. The patients were subjected to thorough examination to detect any abnormalities in ridge, mucosa or temporomandibular joint.
For each patient diagnostic panoramic radiograph was made.
The patients were equally divided into two groups:
Group I: patients were rehabilitated with single mandibular overdentures retained by four mini implants inserted in the interforaminal region.
Group II: patients were rehabilitated with mandibular over dentures retained by two conventional implants inserted in the interforaminal region.
O-ring attachements were used to retain the lower denture to the implants for all the patients in the two groups.
Lower dentures were constructed and delivered following the conventional technique. The delivered dentures for both groups were checked and any occlusal errors were corrected.
Measurements of changes in crestal bone height were made at time of denture loading, 6 and 12 months after loading. Radiographic evaluation using cone beam radiography was followed.Periotest device was used to evaluate the implant mobility and stability six and twelve months after implants loading.
The results were recorded, collected, tabulated and statistically analyzed.
Marginal bone height loss was higher in patients rehabilitated with mini implant supported over dentures compared to patients rehabilitated with conventional implant supported over dentures. Marginal bone height loss was statistically significant mesial, distal, buccal, lingual, and overall the implants between the two groups.
The periotest values (PTV) of conventional implants were better than PTV of mini implants, six and twelve months after loading. The PTVs were satistically significant.