الفهرس 
IntroductionOnly 14 pages are availabe for public view
 |  | from | 166 |  |  |
| | | from | 166 | | |
Abstract
The cautious control of biomechanical loading on dental
implants is imperative to enable the long-term success of
rehabilitation. As implant surface modifications, alterations in the
implant abutment connection system have been one of the design
parameters most changed by implant manufacturers. Rationales
for changing the implant abutment connection design include an
attempt to establish better prosthetic stability and decrease of the
implant abutment gap that have been reported to occur in many
implant systems
Also, implant-supported cantilever fixed prostheses remain
a challenge to a dentist. Due to the difficulty of the experiment
about implants supported cantilever prostheses in patient‟s mouth,
in vitro studies or finite element studies have been done since last
decade However, these studies were mostly for distal cantilever,
and consistent studies concerning mesial cantilever were
definitely lacking. As a result, the comparative study between
mesial cantilever prostheses and distal cantilever prostheses with
different types of connection there for this study aims to evaluate
the effect of the different FPD designs (fixed-fixed, mesial and
distal cantilever prosthesis) and the geometrical designs of the
implant connection systems on the stress distribution. A total of forty two Fixed dental prosthesis were fabricated
in this study. Three epoxy resin models with an edentulous span of
missing mandibular second premolar, first and second molars will
be constructed.
Two implants were be selected and inserted in each epoxy model
to simulate different designs for replacing the missed teeth:
group I: two implants were be inserted replacing lower second
premolar and second molar with fixed-Fixed dental prosthesis.
group II: two implants were be inserted replacing lower first
molar and second molar with mesial cantilever Fixed dental
prosthesis.
group III: two implants were be inserted in lower second
premolar and first molar with distal cantilever Fixed dental
prosthesis.
The samples will be divided in to two main groups according to
the implants’ connection design.
In each group two types of abutment connections will be used:
Subgroup A: Two implants with hexagonal connection.
Subgroup B: Two implants with Tri-Lobe connection.
The Fixed dental prosthesis were constructed using CAD/CAM
system.
Stress distribution were tested using strain gauge. The Data will
be collected, tabulated and statistically analyzed
Results:
The fixed-fixed design showed the best stress distribution.
The trilobe connection type shower higher strain in bone than
hexagonal type.
Conclusion: