![]() 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 |