IADR Abstract Archives

Immediate Loading of Four Interforaminal Implants Supporting Cantilevered Fixed Detachable Restoration with Either Axial or Tilted Distal Inclination Opposing Maxillary Complete Denture: Two-Year Prospective Study.

Objectives: To assess the radiographic and clinical outcomes of immediately loaded 4 axial implants versus 2 axial anterior and 2 tilted posterior implants placed in the mandibular interforaminal area to support fixed detachable restorations.
Methods: : Adopting 80% power of the study in calculating sample size, 32 edentulous participants were randomly allocated to 2 equal groups. The control group received 2 anterior axial and 2 distal tilted implants while the test group received 4 axial implants in the mandibular interforaminal area. On the same day of surgery conversion technique for immediate loading was accomplished. Three months later, all participants received a screw- retained metal resin cantilevered mandibular restoration. A follow-up protocol of 12, and 24 months was scheduled to evaluate marginal bone level changes, modified gingival index, modified plaque index, peri-implant probing depth, and clinical attachment level.
Results: Implants were evaluated throughout 2 years. The clinical results revealed no statistically significant difference (P>.05) between the studied groups regarding the marginal bone level changes, modified gingival index, modified plaque index scores, peri-implant probing depth, and clinical attachment level over the follow-up period.
Conclusions: Flapless guided surgery together with immediate loading of 4 implants, supporting a full-arch cantilevered screw-retained prosthesis in the edentulous mandible is a feasible treatment option, whether the distal implants are inclined or axially placed.

2022 Egyptian Section Meeting/Alexandria International Dental Congress (Alexandria, Egypt)
Alexandria, Egypt
2022

Implantology Research
  • Kammoun, Yara  ( Damanhur university , Alexandria , Montaza , Egypt )
  • Khamis, Mohammed  ( Faculty of Dentistry , Alexandria University , Alexandria , Egypt )
  • El Sharkawy, Ahlam  ( faculty of dentistry, Alexandria University , Alexandria , Egypt )
  • Abdelaziz, Raina  ( Faculty of Dentistry, Alexandria University , Alexandria , Egypt )
  • No potential conflict of interest relevant to this article was reported. This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.
    Poster Session
    Abstracts Presented 2022 Egyptian Section Meeting/Alexandria International Dental Congress (Alexandria, Egypt)
    Comparison between the two studied groups according to different parameters in overall
     All-on-four Group
    (n = 16)
    Axial
    Group
    (n = 16)
    tP
    Bone level changes (mm)
    12 months – Baseline evaluation
    1.318 ±.041.291 ±.041.964.059
    Bone level changes (mm)
    24 months – Baseline evaluation
    1.320 ±.031.299 ±.051.461.154
    Modified gingival index (MGI)
    12 months evaluation
    1.763 ±.261.611 ±.391.302.203
    Modified gingival index (MGI)
    24 months evaluation
    1.807 ±.261.727 ±.36.729.471
    Modified plaque index
    12 months evaluation
    1.557 ±.071.393 ±.331.975.066
    Modified plaque index
    24 months evaluation
    1.631 ±.081.474 ±.301.989.063
    Probing depth
    12 months evaluation
    1.768 ±.101.693 ±.121.947.061
    Probing depth
    24 months evaluation
    1.837 ±.091.767 ±.141.706.098
    Clinical attachment level (CAL)
    12 months evaluation
    .373 ±.08.319 ±.091.760.089
    Clinical attachment level (CAL)
    24 months evaluation
    .400 ±.08.334 ±.131.672.105
         
         
         
         
         
    Data was expressed using Mean ±SD. SD: Standard deviation t: Student t-test p: p value for comparing between the studied groups