Comparison Between Flexible And Skeletal Implant Supported Mandibular Removable Partial Overdenture In Kennedy Class I Situation

Aboshama, Mohamed Ahmed; Abd El Rady, Mostafa; Abdullah, Abdelaziz Baiomy; Abosrie, Mostafa

doi:10.21608/aadj.2022.234704

Comparison Between Flexible And Skeletal Implant Supported Mandibular Removable Partial Overdenture In Kennedy Class I Situation

Document Type : Original Article

Authors

¹ Department of Removable Prosthodontics, Faculty of Dental Medicine, Al-Azhar University, Assuit , Egypt.

² Department of oral and maxillofacial surgery, Faculty of Dental Medicine, Al-Azhar University, Assuit , Egypt.

10.21608/aadj.2022.234704

Abstract

Aim: to compare between the flexible implant supported removable partial over denture and skeletal implant supported removable partial over denture in accordance of clinical parameters and masticatory efficiency for both abutment and implant. Subjects and Methods: ten female patients were selected with partially edentulous mandible Kennedy class I; two implants inserted in the second molar area bilaterally. After healing stage of implant insertion site, these patients divided into two groups group A: (flexible partial denture constructed and supported by the implants) and group B:(skeletal RPD) constructed and supported by the implants. Clinical parameters for both the abutment and the implant have been evaluated immediately after insertion of partial denture and after 4,8,12 months of loading the RPD including gingival index, plaque index, and pocket depth. Masticatory efficiency for the prosthesis also is evaluated. data collected and statistically analyzed. Results: Clinical parameters for both the abutment and the implant showed variant statistically significant difference between (Group A) and (Group B) in base line and 4 ,8 and 12 m readings. While in Masticatory efficiency for both the abutment and the implant, no statistically significant difference was found Between (Group A) and (Group B) in all time interval. Conclusion: It was found that there was difference in gingival index, plaque index and pocket depth between the two groups, which was negative in-group (A) in compares to group (B) for both the implants and abutments. Also, for both types, there was no difference in the result of masticatory efficiency.

Keywords