Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
the evaluation of patient satisfaction of All on-4 versus All on-3 implant treatment concepts rehabilitation of atrophied mandibular ridge.
Patients will be classified into 2 groups according to the implant treatment concept they received:
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
| Label | Type | Description | Intervention Names |
|---|---|---|---|
| • Group 1 (control group) | Active Comparator | patients who received All on 4 implant-supported fixed restoration. The patients received 2 inclined implants anterior to the mental foramina and 2 vertical implants in the lateral incisor/canine areas. |
|
| • Group 2 (test group); | Active Comparator | patients who received All on 3 implant-supported fixed restoration. The patients received 2 inclined implants anterior to the mental foramina and 1 vertical implant in the midline of the mandible. |
|
| Name | Type | Description | Arm Group Labels | Other Names |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| implant supported fixed full arch prosthesis | Device | the patients will receive screw-retained cast metal-ceramic fixed prostheses that replace lost gingival tissues with pink porcelain. |
| Measure | Description | Time Frame |
|---|---|---|
| patient satisfaction | Patient satisfaction was evaluated using a questionnaire based on visual analog scale (VAS) | one year |
| crestal bone loss | bone loss was measured around the implants in mm | Two year |
Not provided
Not provided
Inclusion Criteria:
1. All patients already have implants inserted in their mandibular ridges According to the All on 4 or All on 3 concepts.
2. They were healthy, free from any systemic diseases relating to bone resorption such as uncontrolled diabetes or osteoporosis. This was achieved through medical history and clinical examination by the physician.
3. All patients have sufficient inter-arch space. 4. All patients are of angle class I maxillo-mandibular relationships. 5. All patients had maxillary conventional complete dentures.
Exclusion Criteria:
1. Any neuromuscular disorders 2. Uncooperative patients
-
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
| Name | Affiliation | Role |
|---|---|---|
| Mostafa Elsyad, professor | professor of prosthodontics, Faculty of dentistry , Mansoura University | Principal Investigator |
| Facility | Status | City | State | ZIP | Country | Contacts |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Christine Ibrahim | Al Mansurah | P.O.Box:35516 | Egypt |
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
| ID | Term |
|---|---|
| D011475 | Prosthesis Failure |
| ID | Term |
|---|---|
| D011183 | Postoperative Complications |
| D010335 | Pathologic Processes |
| D013568 | Pathological Conditions, Signs and Symptoms |
Not provided
Not provided
Patients will be classified into 2 groups according to the implant treatment concept they received:
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided