الفهرس 
IntroductionOnly 14 pages are availabe for public view
 |  | from | 147 |  |  |
| | | from | 147 | | |
Abstract
Implant–abutment connection determines the lateral and rotational stability of the implant–abutment joint, which in turn determines the prosthetic stability of the implant-supported restoration, Also the type of implant-abutment connection has been considered to be one of the major factors affecting peri-implant crestal bone change.
The current study is a prospective study designed to compare between two different types of implant connection (self-interlocking, and traditional platform implant -abutment connection ) with telescopic supported overdenture. patients were selected from the clinic of removable prosthodontic department, faculty of dentistry, Minia University. Each patient received two implants in the canine region bilaterally .The implants were divided into two groups according to the implant abutment connection type:
group (1): Implant with tapered self-locking conical abutment.
group (2): Implant with traditional internal hex platform abutment.
Both implant were from the same manufacture and have essentially the same design except for the abutment connection.
The patients were followed up clinically ,radiographically and implant Stability after denture delivery at 3, 6,9 and 12 months. The propose of this study is to compare between two different type of abutment connection: self-interlocking implant abutment with traditional platform abutment with telescopic support overdenture prostheses.
The inclusions criteria were ;cooperative patients, free from any systemic diseases that may affect osseointegration, no medications that may affect healing or osseointegration as proved by medical examination and laboratory investigations, and well developed ridge with sufficient height and width that allow implant insertion with 16mm length ,and 3.7mm with.
Class I Angle’s classification with sufficient inter-arch distance, no tempro- mandibular joint troubles, patients with bad habits such as smoking, alcohol consumption or history of bruxism were not included in the study, other inclusion criteria were no inflammatory signs of the soft tissues: i.e. the cheeks, lips, ridges, palate and tongue, and firm healthy mucosal coverage of the edentulous ridge with minimal tissue undercuts. This was insured by palpation and digital examination, Normal tongue shape and size.
All cases were subjected to the following:
1. All the patients were informed about their line of treatment, procedures and the necessity for their frequent attendance.
2. A pre-operative CBCT was taken ,and follow periapical x-ray after delivery ,3,6,9,12 months.
Methods of evaluation:
A) Clinically:
1. Gingival health: by measuring gingival index.
2. Pocket depth around implant the abutments.
B) Radiographic evaluation:
1 - Image analysis and measuring of crestal bone changes.
2 - bone density measurements.
C)implant stability: by using osstell TM
The results are summarized as follows :
With gingival index: values of Traditional (Reactive) implants compared with self-locking (interactive) .The mean values of gingival index for both groups were non significantly different than each other at any time or interval of fallow up. While for each individuals group of implants ,The mean values of gingival index showed significant increase all over time.
With pocket depth : values of Traditional (Reactive) implants compared with self-locking (interactive) .The mean values of pocket depth for both groups were non significantly different than each other at any time or interval of fallow up. While for each individuals group of implants ,The mean values of pocket depth showed significant increase all over time.
Regarding to marginal bone level changes: there was significant increase in mean bone height loss with interactive implant with time progression of duration. It was 0.12 at delivery increased to 0.36 at three, 0.51 at 6 months, 0.70 at 9 months then 0.81 at 12 months with self locking implants (interactive). While with Traditional (reactive) implants the mean bone height at different interval in patients with reactive implant, there was no significant difference between delivery and 3 month (p= 0.06 but there was significant increase of 6month (p=0.01), 9 month (p=0.01) and 12 month (0.01) from delivery.
Regarding to bone density at different interval between both groups: there was significant increased mean bone density among self locking implants than traditional implants at different interval except at 9 month and 12 month.
Regarding to implant stability there was significant increase of mean implant stability among self-locking implants than traditional at different intervals.