Radiographic and clinical assessments of CAD\CAM titanium and BioHPP framework in maxillary fixed implant-supported prosthesis

Abstract

Aim: Comparing titanium framework and BioHPP framework for maxillary implant fixedsupported prostheses Methods:The study was conducted on fourteen patients rehabilitated with maxillary fixed implant-supported prostheses supported by six dental implants. Patients were randomly divided into Group I: maxillary fixed implant-supported using a titanium framework. Group II: maxillary fixed implant supported using the BioHpp framework Cases were evaluated for crestal bone loss at zero, six, and twelve months and for gingival index and pocket depth at zero, three, six, and twelve months.Results: Overall bone loss in group I was 0.14 mm and 0.12 mm, and in group II, it was 0.18mm and 0.15 mm at 6 months and 12 months, respectively; lower values of bone loss for the titanium framework compared to the BioHPP framework were found but considered statistically not significant. Gingival index in group I was 0.28, 0.22, 0.18, 0.1, and in group II, it was 0.32, 0.28, 0.22, 0.22, and probing depth in group I was 1.05, 1.5, 1.37, and 1.39, and in group II it was 1.06, 1.4, 1.35, 1.38 at baseline, 3 months, 6 months, and 12 months, respectively, and was found statistically not significant with better results for the BioHPP framework compared to the titanium framework. Conclusion:Within the study's limitations, the BioHPP framework material is considered to be a reliable material to be used for framework fabrication..