Publications by authors named "Fatma El-Waseef"

2 Publications

  • Page 1 of 1

Clips vs Resilient Liners Used With Bilateral Posterior Prefabricated Bars for Retaining Four Implant-Supported Mandibular Overdentures.

J Oral Implantol 2017 Aug 19;43(4):273-281. Epub 2017 Jun 19.

2 ‚ÄČ Department of Oral Surgery, Faculty of Dentistry, Mansoura University, Mansoura, Egypt.

The objective of this research was to clinically compare peri-implant tissue health of bar-clips vs silicone-resilient liners used with bilateral posterior bars for retaining 4 implant-supported mandibular overdentures. Thirty completely edentulous male patients (mean age, 65 years) were randomly assigned into 2 equal groups. Each patient received 4 implants in the canine and first molar regions of the mandible using a flapless surgical technique. Mandibular overdentures were immediately connected to the implants with bilateral prefabricated instant adjusting bars. According to the method of retention to the bar, 1 group was retained with clips (GI), whereas the other group was retained with a silicone-resilient soft liner (GII). Peri-implant tissue health was evaluated clinically in terms of plaque scores (MPI), bleeding scores (MBI), probing depth (PD), and implant stability (IS). MPI, MBI, and PD were measured at mesial, distal, buccal, and lingual surfaces of each implant. Evaluations were performed 2 weeks (T0), 6 months (T6), and 12 months (T12) after overdenture insertion. Implants of GI with clips demonstrated significant increase in plaque, bleeding, and PD scores compared with those of GII with silicone-resilient liner at all observation times. Implants in GI demonstrated a significant decrease in implant stability compared with those of GII at T6 and T12 anteriorly and at T12 posteriorly. Resilient liners are considered better than bar-clips when used with bilateral posterior bars for retaining implant-supported mandibular overdentures in terms of peri-implant soft tissue health. Bilateral posterior ready-made bars cannot be proposed as a promising design for supporting implant-assisted mandibular overdentures.
View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1563/aaid-joi-D-16-00148DOI Listing
August 2017

A comparison of mandibular denture base deformation with different impression techniques for implant overdentures.

Clin Oral Implants Res 2013 Aug 17;24 Suppl A100:127-33. Epub 2012 Jan 17.

Removable Prosthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Mansoura University, Eldakahlia, Egypt.

Purpose: This study aimed to evaluate mandibular denture base deformation along with three impression techniques used for implant-retained overdenture.

Materials And Methods: Ten edentulous patients (five men and five women) received two implants in the canine region of the mandible and three duplicate mandibular overdentures which were constructed with mucostatic, selective pressure, and definitive pressure impression techniques. Ball abutments and respective gold matrices were used to connect the overdentures to the implants. Six linear strain gauges were bonded to the lingual polished surface of each duplicate overdenture at midline and implant areas to measure strain during maximal clenching and gum chewing.

Results: The strains recorded at midline were compressive while strains at implant areas were tensile. Clenching recorded significant higher strain when compared with gum chewing for all techniques. The mucostatic technique recorded the highest strain and the definite pressure technique recorded the lowest. There was no significant difference between the strain recorded with mucostatic technique and that registered with selective pressure technique. The highest strain was recorded at the level of ball abutment's top with the mucostatic technique during clenching.

Conclusion And Recommendation: Definite pressure impression technique for implant-retained mandibular overdenture is associated with minimal denture deformation during function when compared with mucostatic and selective pressure techniques. Reinforcement of the denture base over the implants may be recommended to increase resistance of fracture when mucostatic or selective pressure impression technique is used.
View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0501.2011.02395.xDOI Listing
August 2013
-->