الفهرس 
Prosthetic complications of screw retained restoration using multi-unit abutments versus intra-oral luting on titanium base in implant supported complete overdentures randomized clinical trial
AbstractOnly 14 pages are availabe for public view
 |  | from | 181 |  |  |
| | | from | 181 | | |
Abstract
Aim: This study aimed to figure out the difference between a full-arch screw-retained implant prosthesis on titanium bases using intraoral luting cement technique and a full-arch screw-retained implant prosthesis with the transmucosal abutment in terms of prosthetic complication. Materials and methods: Nineteen patients were recruited in this trial, there were mainly two groups. A screw-retained full-arch implant-supported prosthesis was constructed over four dental implants on upper or lower jaws. A multiunit abutment was used to construct a screw-retained prosthesis in the control group. Ti-base was used over the dental implant to build up a screw-retained prosthesis in the experimental group. In both groups, the prosthesis framework was made using PEEK material and luted intraoral over the titanium sleeve using resin cement. A binary outcome of prosthetic complication was taken in 6 and 12 months. Abutment screw loosening, Prosthetic screw loosening, Prosthetic screw fracture, Abutment screw fracture, Veneer fracture, Framework fracture, Ti-base decementation, and Overall prosthetic loosening were the prosthetic complication included in the trial. Results: Data were explored for normality using Kolmogorov-Smirnov and Shapiro Wilk tests, data showed non-parametric (not-normal) distribution. Qualitative data were presented as frequencies and percentages. Wilcoxon and Mann Whitney tests were used to comparing the qualitative outcomes in this study. The significance level was set at P {u2264} 0.05. Statistical analysis was performed with IBM® SPSS® Statistics Version 20. There was no statistically significant difference between Ti-base and multiunit in terms of prosthetic complications for 6 and 12 months