الفهرس 
List of figures
Single overlaid natural abutmentsOnly 14 pages are availabe for public view
 |  | from | 121 |  |  |
| | | from | 121 | | |
Abstract
This study conducted to compare between two concepts for implants retained telescopic mandibular overdentures used to rehabilitate a completely edentulous mandibular arch with only remaining single retainable canine on marginal bone loss and posterior area index. Material and methods: twelve patients with single remaining canines were divided into two groups, group 1 : one implant was inserted in the opposing canine area, in group II : one implant inserted in the opposing cainine area and another two were inserted in second premolar area on each side. Resilient telescopes were used to retain the overdentures. Periapical xrays and rotational tomograms and were taken immediately, six months and twelve months after insertion for measurements of posterior area index and marginal bone loss. Results: canines showed insignificant difference in VBL between groups at T6 and T12 and anterior implants in GI associated with significant higher VBL than GII at T12 only. Canines in GI recorded significant higher HBLO than GII at T6 and T12 and anterior implants showed insignificant difference in HBLO between groups was noted at T6 or T12. Insignificant difference in PAI was noted between groups at T6 or T12. Conclusion: The use of one implant in conjunction with natural overlaid abutments maintained the posterior ridge area regardless the implant number used. The use of single telescopic attachment for implant in conjunction with natural overlaid abutment arranged linearly on both sides of mandibular arch is not recommended regarding marginal bone maintenance around both abutments. The use of double telescopic attachments for three implants in conjunction with natural overlaid abutment arranged quadrilaterally on both sides of mandibular arch is recommended regarding marginal bone maintenance around all abutments.