الفهرس 
IntroductionOnly 14 pages are availabe for public view
 |  | from | 224 |  |  |
| | | from | 224 | | |
Abstract
The biggest challenge of oral rehabilitation is replacing lost structures and restoring their function and esthetics, focusing on matching a healthy tooth.
Traditional complete dentures implant (retained, supported) overdentures, and complete implant-supported fixed prostheses are all alternatives to rehabilitating the mandibular arch.
This study compared BioHPP as a skeletal substructure for hybrid prostheses versus BioHPP bar supporting and retaining overdentures. It was assessed using radiographic tracing to measure marginal bone height changes around implants and evaluate patient satisfaction.
According to specific criteria, fourteen completely edentulous male patients were selected from the out-patient clinic, Prosthodontic Department, Faculty of Dentistry, Ain Shams University. They were randomly allocated into two equal groups: group I: the patients were rehabilitated by the BioHpp hybrid prosthesis. In group II, the BioHpp bar rehabilitated the patients, supporting and retaining overdentures.
The upper and lower complete dentures were constructed following conventional methods, and the surgical guide was constructed according to dual-scan CBCT. The four interforaminal implants were inserted parallel into each patient’s mandible.
After three months, the final prosthesis was constructed. Digital workflow CAD/CAM was used to create the group I BioHpp fixed hybrid prosthesis and the group II BioHpp bar implant-supported and retained complete overdentures.
The crestal bone height loss was evaluated after six, twelve, and eighteen months from implant loading using digital preapical radiography. Also, the patient’s subjective evaluation using a questionnaire based on the visual analog scale, including five points (low dissatisfied, dissatisfied, fair, satisfied, highly satisfied) were evaluated for speech, chewing, comfort aesthetic, oral hygiene, and general satisfaction.
A comparison between groups I and II was performed using the Chi-square test, revealing that group II was significantly lower than group I at all intervals in anterior and posterior implants’ mesial and distal surfaces. Also, the patient satisfaction survey results revealed that, after six months, there was an insignificant difference between them as P > 0.05. Still, oral hygiene as satisfaction was significantly higher in group II than in group I. While After18 months, there was an insignificant difference between them all (P > 0.05).