![]() ![]() ![]() Both acrylic and ceramic suprastructures appeared to be equivalent after 6 years however, ceramic suprastructures revealed superior clinical results in terms of bone loss and plaque accumulation. Bleeding on probing and plaque accumulation showed also positive correlation with marginal bone loss. However, marginal bone loss was significantly more pronounced around the implants in the acrylic group (2.15 ± 0.30) and the difference between two groups was statistically significant ( p: 0.00). ![]() Marginal bone loss around implants of the ceramic group remained well within the limits for ‘success’, as defined by the 2007 Pisa consensus over the time (1.43 ± 0.35 mm). Prosthetic complications, marginal bone loss, plaque accumulation, bleeding on probing, bite force and oral-health-related quality of life were assessed over a period of 6 years. A total of 34 patients were assigned to subgroups according to their own preference of the superstructure type (ceramics or acrylic resin ). The aim of the current study was to document the long-term clinical results of the use of two prosthetic techniques for the rehabilitation of completely edentulous maxillae according to the “All-on-Four” concept: Fixed, screw-retained prosthesis mounted on a chrome-molybdenum framework with (1) metal-ceramic veneers and (2) Acrylic prosthesis with acrylic resin prosthetic teeth. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |