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.

INTRODUCTION: The use of implant-supported overdentures is a common approach for treating edentulous mandibles. Retention and stability are provided through attachments; bar attachments being probably the most retentive due to greater mechanical stability and better wear resistance. Micro and macro movement between the retentive surfaces of an attachment during mastication, insertion and removal will lead to wear and decrease of the retentive capacity. Using CAD/CAM technology should produce more precise frameworks with better retention. OBJECTIVES: was to compare the retention of different Cobalt Chromium bar attachments fabricated by CAD/CAM technology and conventional methods. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Two bar attachments of different method of fabrication were studied. The bars were divided into two different groups according to whether the bar was fabricated using the conventional method or CAD/CAM technology. The retention provided by each bar was tested using Universal testing machine. The difference in retention was compared between the groups. RESULTS: Data was collected, tabulated and statistically analyzed using the appropriate test. Group 1 needed 32.91N dislodging force. Group 2 needed 62.8N to separate the clip from the bar CONCLUSIONS: CAD/CAM fabricated bars showed a significantly higher retentive force in comparison to conventional bars.

No abstract

Objectives: This study aims to simplify the conventional resin-on-floss splinting technique and study the precision of this modified multiimplant impression technique.Material and Methods: Twenty-four (n=24) impressions were done for one mandibular completely edentulous model with six implants placed at the canines, first premolars and first molars. Group I (n=12) used the sectional resin-on-floss splinting technique. Group II (n=12) used the simplified tray-resin splint technique. The reference model and casts were scanned. Obtained STLs were aligned. Virtual implants on each cast were compared to reference model measuring angular and positional deviations. All variables and were compared at p value <.05.Results: Group I had significantly lower differences in angular deviations in vertical and horizontal axes of each implant except the left first molar implant, vertically, and the left first premolar implant, horizontally. The overall angular deviations of all implants were significantly lower in group I at the vertical axis. Group I had significantly lower positional deviations in XY axes of each implant except the left first molar implant. Group I showed significantly lower values on the left canine and left first premolar implant in the Z axis. The overall positional deviations of each implant of group I were significantly lower on the left canine and right first molar implants. The overall positional deviations of all implants were significantly lower in group I at the XY axes.Conclusions: Conventional resin-on-floss technique showed less deviation values. Values of both techniques remained within the accepted level of clinical misfit values proposed in literature.

No abstract