INTRODUCTION: Diabetes Mellitus (DM) is a systemic disease that affects large part of the population and is considered a relative contraindication to implant therapy. However, there are studies showing that the survival rate of implants in type-2 diabetic patients is approximately 90%, approaching that of non-diabetic patients. It is also shown that these results are strictly correlated with the importance of glycemic control to provide predictability of success rates and improve osseointegration of the implants inserted. There is no evidence whether controlled type-1 diabetes is or is not a risk factor for implant failure. OBJECTIVES: The objective of this study was to clinically and radiographically evaluate the success of implant overdenture in controlled type-1 diabetic patients. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Ten completely edentulous well controlled type-1 and ten non-diabetic patients were selected and divided into group I and II respectively. All patients received three implant assisted mandibular overdentures through minimally invasive flapless technique. Clinical evaluation of implant stability was performed using Osstell ISQ immediately after implant placement (base line), four months and one year after prosthesis insertion. Level of alveolar bone loss around each abutment was also evaluated using Cone Beam Computed Tomography (CBCT) at the time of final prosthesis insertion (base line), four months and one year after insertion. RESULTS: Of the ten patients in the study group, two patients were lost yielding a success rate of 80 % in group I. Clinical results of implant stability test showed significant decrease in stability in the study group as compared to the control group, also radiographical results revealed significant increase in amount of average crestal bone loss in the diabetic patients. CONCLUSIONS: Within the limitations of this study, and based on the clinical level, the implant overdenture may be recognized as being predictable treatment option for controlled type-1 diabetic patients.

No abstract

Inferior alveolar nerve (IAN) mobilization for patients suffering from severe vertical bone loss is a viable treatment option However, the technique has been used for over 20 years, it has the potential for postsurgical neurosensory changes. The aim of this study was to evaluate the piezoelectric assisted IAN lateralization and simultaneous implant placement in resorbed mandibular posterior ridges. Material and methods:Ten patients with posterior mandibular ridge atrophy in need for (IAN) lateralization and immediate implant placement were selected to participate within this study. Results:The pin tactile discrimination test showed normal sensory function of the inferior alveolar nerve from the 3rd months postoperative (100%) in all patients, Unlike the two-point discrimination test where the inferior alveolar nerve function was (25%) at the 3rd month postoperative then increased to be (50%) at the 6th month postoperative. Implant stability quotient (ISQ) mean values were discovered to be statistically significant increasing immediately postoperative, 3 and 6 months later in all implants. Finally, there was an increase in bone density around the installed implant. Conclusion:Although the current surgical modality is a technique sensitive, it may be a less risky procedure through the proper preoperative CBCT planning and the use of piezoelectric surgical device.

INTRODUCTION :Tilted implants were suggested as a treatment option for sever bone resorption. The use of angle correcting attachments is a must in the cases of tilted implants. OBJECTIVES: Comparing the micro strain around tilted implants and axial implants placed according to the all on four concept which were connected to two different attachment designs using. Material and methods:Identical maxillary epoxy resin models were used. Four implants were placed in each model. The two anterior axial implants in the incisors area and two posterior 25-degree tilted implants in the canine -premolar area. For Group I model OT-Equator attachment were connected to all four implants and smart box female housing were used on posterior tilted implants for angle correction. for Group II model Straight Positioner attachments connected to anterior parallel implants and angulated Positioner attachment connected to posterior tilted implants. Two strain gauges were placed mesial and distal to each implant. A universal testing machine and strain meter were used to evaluate micro strain after load application. RESULTS : There were statistically significant higher micro strain values around tilted implants when compared to micro strain values around axial implants of both groups. There was no statistically significant difference when comparing micro strain around tilted implants and axial implants of both groups. CONCLUSIONS: There was no difference in micro-strain around tilted implants connected to both attachment designs. the tilted implants showed micro strain values higher than axial ones in both groups. Tilting the implants was associated with unequal force distribution.