الفهرس 
List of contentOnly 14 pages are availabe for public view
 |  | from | 168 |  |  |
| | | from | 168 | | |
Abstract
Objectives: This study aimed at comparing (in vivo) the retention of bar- ball attachment versus bar- locator attachment for retaining two implants assisted complete mandibular overdenture. Materials and methods: Ten completely edentulous healthy patients were selected for this study. Using two-stage surgical technique, two inter-foraminal implants were used for each patient in the canine areas of the mandible. Implants left unloaded for three months. According to the type of bar attachment, the patients were randomly classified into two equal groups, group (I) The patients received bar-ball attachment and group (II) The patients received bar-locator attachment. Digital force meter was used to evaluate retention at time of insertion (T0), four weeks(T1) and three months(T2) after overdenture insertion. Results: There was a statistically significant difference between group(I) and group(II) at time of insertion (F=39.93)&( P≤ 0.05), after four weeks (F=42.58)&( P≤ 0.05) and three months (F=30.42)&( P≤ 0.05) after overdenture insertion. There was a statistically significant difference at different observation times for both groups, bar-ball attachment: T0& T1 (P = 0.002), T0& T2 (P = 0.000) and T1& T2 (P = 0.000).bar-locator attachment: T0& T1 (P = 0.011), T0& T2 (P = 0.002) and T1& T2 (P = 0.003). Conclusion: Bar-locator attachment is more promising approach regarding maximizing and maintaining higher retention than bar-ball attachment. However, prospective radiographic studies are needed to monitor bone resorption around implants and residual alveolar ridge Key words: bar-ball, bar-locator, implant assisted overdenture, retention.