Aim:The selection of the appropriate denture base material for obturator fabrication is essential as it significantly affects the overall clinical outcomes. Flexible acrylic resin obturators provide an excellent alternative to the traditionally used PMMA obturators, due to its` impeccable esthetics, comfort, retention and adaption to the constantly mobile oral tissues. Subjects and methods: This is a randomized, crossover study. Patients included in the study were randomly allocated into one of two groups (group AB and group BA). Each of the patients included in the study had a conventional PMMA (device A) and a flexible (device B) obturator constructed for them to be used sequentially each for two weeks. The patients filled a 5-point Likert scale obturator functioning scale after two weeks of using each type of obturator. The data were statistically analyzed. Results: The results of this study demonstrated that device B which is an obturator made of flexible acrylic resin provided a significantly higher patient satisfaction compared to device A, which is constructed of PMMA. Conclusion: Flexible acrylic resin obturators are more satisfying to maxillectomy patients than PMMA obturators.Key to attaining the desired outcomes in the rehabilitation of maxillectomy patients is the utilization of an obturator (3) . The selection of the appropriate denture base material for obturator fabrication is

Purpose: The purpose of this finite element analysis study was to evaluate the effect of single implant position (central, canine) and denture base materials (conventional acrylic resin, glass fiber reinforced acrylic resin) on stress distribution in single implant supported mandibular overdenture. Materials and methods:Two 3 dimensional finite element models of mandibular overdenture supported by a single implant were designed in solid works 2015 software; model I a single implant in central region with conventional acrylic resin denture base, model I b single implant in central region with glass fiber reinforced acrylic resin denture base, model II a single implant in canine region with conventional acrylic resin denture base, model II b single implant in canine region with glass fiber reinforced acrylic resin denture base. A 300 N vertical and A 300 N oblique unilateral loads applied at 1 st premolar, 2 nd premolar and 1 st molar areas were applied. Maximum and minimum loads were calculated.Results: Under vertical loading, the maximum stresses in the glass fiber reinforced acrylic denture base half that of conventional one in central position while in canine position nearly 8% increase in the stresses. Under oblique loading, the maximum stresses in the denture base show no significant difference in the 2 models. Conclusion:These results should only be used for comparative purposes between the two denture bases and cannot be viewed as a substitute for further clinical investigation. Conclusion:These resuIts shouId onIy be used for comparative purposes between the two denture bases and cannot be viewed as a substitute for further clinical investigation. (3928)Ahmed A. Elwahed Shaaban, et al.

No abstract

Aim: This study was conducted to evaluate and compare marginal bone level for Tooth-implant supported Kennedy class I partial denture compared to implant supported Kennedy class I partial denture using extracoronal attachments. Subjects and Methods : Ten male partially edentulous patients (Kennedy class I) with the canines are the last standing abutments were selected and all patients were rehabilitated with metallic partial denture supported by osseointegrated implants one on each side of the arch positioned in the premolar area and were randomly divided into two equal groups according to type of abutments, Group I; Patients were rehabilitated with Tooth Implant Retained partial denture with extra coronal attachment, Group II; Patients were rehabilitated with splinted Implant Retained partial denture with extra coronal attachment on each side. Evaluation by measuring marginal bone level for last main abutments was made at the time of insertion, after 6 month, after 12 month and last after 18 month using radiographic evaluation. Results: Partial dentures retained by two splinted implants showed better non-significant difference in marginal bone loss as compared with tooth implant retained Partial dentures. Conclusion: Using tooth implant retained partial dentures shows better effect on supporting structure as compared compared with tooth implant retained Partial dentures.

Objective: To compare between implant retained overdenture with two different attachments by measuring : Retention. Bone changes by radiographic evaluation. Subjects and Methods: Eight completely edentulous patients were selected from the Outpatient Clinic of the Prosthodontic Department; Faculty of Dental medicine, Al-Azhar University and classified into two equal groups. Each patient in two groups received two implants placed in the mandibular canine-premolar region bilaterally. Group (1): four patients received two implants using equator attachments. Group (2): four patients received two implants with using magnet attachments, and the study was randomized controlled trial with Calculated samples. Type of randomization in that study was Block randomization and The out comes was assessor blinded as the investigators didn't know the type of the attachment before measuring retention or amount bone resorption Results: Results revealed that, there was no statistically significant difference in bone loss between equator and magnet during the follow up period, and there were no statistically significant mean retention values in the two groups at base line and after 3 months. But 6 months; Magnet attachment showed statistically significantly lower mean retention values than Equator attachment. By time there was a statistically significant decrease in mean retention values of magnet rather than locator attachment. Conclusion: The use of equator and magnet attachments with two implant supported mandibular overdentures leads the same effect on crestal bone resorption. At the beginning the two attachment have the same retention quality by time magnet attachment loss some of its retention rather than locator attachment.