IADR Abstract Archives
Equator Profile Vs Multi Unit Abutment: 4 Years Clinical Follow-up
Objectives: 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.
Methods: 15 Participating Patients (7 males, 8 females, mean age 72 ± 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 finally realized after 6 weeks. We compared the overall technical time to realize the final prosthesis with the two methods. Patient 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.
Results: Patient satisfaction was 4.41 ± 0.39 for EP rehabilitations and 4.2 ±0.26 for MUA rehabilitations. The number of technical passages and time of realization with both methods resulted significantly reduced compared to conventional procedures. Maintenance: 1 minor prosthetic complication occurred (fracture of an incisor after 40 months, repaired in 2 hours) in a MUA rehabilitation.
Conclusions: Within the limits of this study, 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 implants with limited parallelism and during the prosthetic phases.
Methods: 15 Participating Patients (7 males, 8 females, mean age 72 ± 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 finally realized after 6 weeks. We compared the overall technical time to realize the final prosthesis with the two methods. Patient 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.
Results: Patient satisfaction was 4.41 ± 0.39 for EP rehabilitations and 4.2 ±0.26 for MUA rehabilitations. The number of technical passages and time of realization with both methods resulted significantly reduced compared to conventional procedures. Maintenance: 1 minor prosthetic complication occurred (fracture of an incisor after 40 months, repaired in 2 hours) in a MUA rehabilitation.
Conclusions: Within the limits of this study, 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 implants with limited parallelism and during the prosthetic phases.