الفهرس 
AcknowledgementOnly 14 pages are availabe for public view
 |  | from | 103 |  |  |
| | | from | 103 | | |
Abstract
ments, the locator versus the ball and socket attachment used with complete mandibular overdenture retained with a single midline implant regarding; qual-ity of life, plaque accumulation and peri-implant probing depth. Twenty two patients were selected from the outpatient clinic of the prosthodontics department, faculty of dentistry, Cairo university to participate in this study. The patients were then randomly assigned to two groups equally. group I pa-tients received mandibular overdenture retained with single midline implant using locator attachment while group II patients received mandibular overden-ture retained with single midline implant using ball attachment. Oral health related quality of life was measured using the short form oral heal impact profile questionnaire over the period of 9 months as follows: before implant insertion but after denture fabrication (0 month from implant insertion), after 1-2 weeks of implant loading (3 months after implant insertion), 3 months after implant loading (6 months after implant insertion) and finally 6 months after implant loading (9 months after implant insertion). Plaque accumulation and peri-implant probing depth was also evaluated over the period of 6 months of implant loading (at 3,6 and 9 months from implant insertion).
According to the results of this study both groups showed a significant increase in satisfaction after converting the conventional complete denture to a single implant retained overdenture which is denoted by the spike in patient satisfaction between 0 months on one hand and 3,6 and 9 months on the other hand. Correspondingly, there was a statistically significant difference between the satisfaction of group I and group II with group I (locator group) showing more favorable results. Although regarding the plaque assessment there was no statistically significant difference between the two groups with both groups scoring below average. Conclusively, both groups were within the normal healthy range when assessing peri-implant probing depth with group I (locator group) showing statistically significant difference and scoring bet-ter results.