The purpose of this clinical study was to compare innovative OT Equator Profile (EP) Attachment with MUA supporting full arch implant rehabilitations. The evaluations regard: patient satisfaction, number of clinical sessions, prosthetic complications, survival rates.
Method:
15 Participating Patients (7 males, 8 females, mean age 71 ±10years) with full-arch implant retained by OT EP Attachment (4 males,4 females) and MUA (3 males, 4 females) participated in this clinical study. From 4 to 8 implants were placed in edentulous arch . Fixed Provisional rehabilitations are loaded immediately. Prosthetic rehabilitation was final realized after 6 weeks. Were compared the overall technical time to realize the final prosthesis with the two methods. Patient’s satisfaction was evaluated with a questionnaire with a VAS from 1 to 5. Survival rates and maintenance procedures or prosthetic complications were also recorded during the follow-up period.
Result:
Patient satisfaction was 4.41 ± 0.39 for EP reahabilitations and 4.2 ±0.26 for MUA reahabilitations . The number of technical passages and time of realization with both methods resulted Significantly Reduced Compared to conventional procedures. During a mean observation time of 36 ± 2 months only 1 implant was lost due to peri-implantitis (99% survival rate). Maintenance: No prosthetic complication occurred.
Conclusion:
We can conclude that EP and MUA get the same clinical findings in terms of patient satisfaction and prosthetic success; Equator Profile has shown more versatility and ease of use in the management of implant with limited parallel and prosthetic phases.