Publications by authors named "Ehab Elsaih"

4 Publications

  • Page 1 of 1

Four-implant-supported fixed prosthesis and milled bar overdentures for rehabilitation of the edentulous mandible: A 1-year randomized controlled clinical and radiographic study.

Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2019 November/December;34(6):1493–1503. Epub 2019 Jun 1.

Purpose: The purpose of this study was the clinical and radiographic evaluation of four-implant-supported fixed prostheses and milled bar overdentures for rehabilitation of the edentulous mandible.

Materials And Methods: Thirty-six edentulous participants received four implants in the mandible (two vertical implants in the canine/lateral incisor area and two distally inclined implants anterior to the mental foramina) using flapless surgery. The implants were loaded with the mandibular dentures in the same day after necessary modifications. Three months after implant placement, participants were randomly allocated to one of two groups: (1) the overdenture group, where participants received milled bar overdentures; or (2) the fixed group, where participants received ceramo-metal fixed prostheses. Plaque and gingival indices, pocket depth, implant stability (using Osstell device), and marginal bone resorption (using standardized intraoral radiographs) were evaluated at the time of prosthesis insertion (T0), and 6 (T6) and 12 (T12) months after insertion.

Results: The implant survival rate was 100% for both groups. Plaque Index, Gingival Index, pocket depth, implant stability, and bone resorption significantly increased by time for anterior (P < .001) and posterior (P < .018) implants. Fixed prostheses showed significantly higher Plaque Index, Gingival Index, and pocket depth than milled bar for anterior (P < .001) and posterior (P < .037) implants. No significant differences in implant stability and bone resorption between groups were noted. For fixed prostheses, anterior implants showed significantly higher Plaque Index, Gingival Index, and pocket depth than posterior implants (P < .001) after 12 months. However, no significant differences in implant stability and bone resorption between anterior and posterior implants were noted for both groups.

Conclusion: Both fixed prostheses and milled bar prostheses could be used successfully for immediately loaded four-implant rehabilitations of the edentulous mandible, as they were associated with favorable clinical and radiographic outcomes after 1 year. However, milled bar may be more advantageous than fixed prostheses in terms of reduced plaque/gingival indices and probing depth.
View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.11607/jomi.7667DOI Listing
December 2019

Effect of Implant Location on Palateless Complete Overdenture Retention: an Study.

J Oral Maxillofac Res 2018 Jul-Sep;9(3):e3. Epub 2018 Sep 30.

Department of Prosthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Mansoura University, MansouraEgypt.

Objectives: The purpose of this study was to evaluate effect of implant location on initial retention values of palateless complete overdentures retained by four o-rings at different inter-implant distances.

Material And Methods: Two standard acrylic models representing completely edentulous maxillary arches were used. Four single piece ball type implants were placed in each model. Models were divided into two groups according to the distance between anterior and posterior implants. Two canine implants with 32 mm inter-implant distance were placed in both models. In one model (G1), two posterior implants were placed in second premolar region away from canine implants by 14 mm on both sides, while in the other model (G2), the two posterior implants were placed in first molar region away from canine implants by 22 mm on both sides. Eighteen palateless complete overdentures were constructed for each model. Overdentures were retained by four o-rings. Initial axial (central), and para-axial (anterior, posterior, and lateral) retention values of overdentures were estimated and compared using a universal testing machine.

Results: Independent t-test revealed that implant location has a significant role in palateless complete overdenture retention with a level of significance set at P < 0.05.

Conclusions: For simulated palateless implant overdentures retained by four o-rings, increasing the inter-implant distance between anterior and posterior implants is favourable for a more retentive prosthesis.
View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.5037/jomr.2018.9303DOI Listing
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6225600PMC
September 2018

Clinical and Radiographic Evaluation of Bar, Telescopic, and Locator Attachments for Implant-Stabilized Overdentures in Patients with Mandibular Atrophied Ridges: A Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial.

Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2018 Sep/Oct;33(5):1103-1111

Purpose: The aim of this study was to evaluate the clinical and radiographic peri-implant tissues of bar, Locator, and resilient telescopic attachments for two-implant stabilized overdentures in subjects with mandibular atrophied ridges.

Materials And Methods: Ninety edentulous individuals with mandibular ridge atrophy were randomly assigned into three equal groups and received two implants in the canine areas. Mandibular overdentures were constructed and attached to implants with Dolder bar attachments (BOD), resilient telescopes (TOD), and Locators (LOD). Plaque scores, gingival scores, pocket depths, implant stability, width of keratinized mucosa, vertical bone loss, and horizontal bone loss were evaluated at the time of prosthesis delivery and 6 months and 12 months after delivery.

Results: With the exception of pocket depth and implant stability, all parameters showed a significant increase from prosthesis delivery to 6 months. BOD recorded the highest plaque scores, gingival scores, and pocket depths followed by LOD, and TOD recorded the lowest values. No significant difference in implant stability and keratinized mucosa was observed between groups. TOD and BOD recorded the highest vertical and horizontal bone losses, respectively. LOD recorded the lowest vertical and horizontal bone losses. There was no difference in implant survival rate between groups.

Conclusion: Bar, resilient telescopic, and Locator attachments can be used successfully for two-implant stabilized overdentures in subjects with mandibular atrophied ridges after a 1-year follow-up period. Telescopic attachments were associated with improved clinical peri-implant soft tissues compared with other attachments. However, Locator attachments may be advantageous in terms of peri-implant bone preservation.
View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.11607/jomi.6363DOI Listing
November 2018

The effect of cantilevered bar length on strain around two implants supporting a mandibular overdenture.

Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2013 May-Jun;28(3):e143-50

Faculty of Dentistry, Mansoura University, ElDakahlia, Egypt.

Purpose: The aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of cantilevered bar length on strain produced around two implants supporting a mandibular overdenture.

Materials And Methods: Two root-form implants were placed bilaterally in the canine region of an edentulous acrylic resin mandibular cast and connected with a resilient bar/clip attachment. Four linear strain gauges were bonded to the acrylic resin at the mesial and distal surfaces of each implant. Each gauge was wired separately into a 1/4 Wheatstone bridge of a multichannel digital bridge amplifier. Strains were measured without cantilevered bar extensions (control group) and with the following lengths of cantilevered bars: 11 mm (group 1), 9 mm (group 2), and 7 mm (group 3). For each cantilevered bar length, strains were measured using clips placed on the cantilevers and attached to the overdenture (bar-clip contact) and without clips (bar-acrylic resin contact). Strain measurements were performed under central and unilateral loading using a loading device.

Results: The bar with cantilevers (either with or without clips) demonstrated a significant increase in strain compared to the bar without cantilevers. The 11-mm cantilever length generated the highest peri-implant strain values, while the 7-mm length recorded the lowest. For all cantilevered bar lengths, the strains significantly decreased with bar-clip contact compared to bar-acrylic resin contact. Under central loading, distal and mesial peri-implant strains were the highest and the lowest values, respectively, while under unilateral loading, the highest strain was recorded at distal sites of the loading side and the lowest was recorded at distal sites of the nonloading side. A positive correlation was found between the recorded strain and the cantilevered bar length.

Conclusion: The 7-mm cantilevered bar with clips placed on the cantilevers was recommended when two implants were used to support mandibular overdentures, as it demonstrated the lowest magnitude of strains with no significant differences between peri-implant sites.
View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.11607/jomi.2467DOI Listing
April 2014
-->