الفهرس 
IntroductionOnly 14 pages are availabe for public view
 |  | from | 168 |  |  |
| | | from | 168 | | |
Abstract
Background : Minimizing the occlusal loads on osseo integrated implants through selection of a new superstructure material that can absorb part of this excessive force could be believed to be a determining factor in the long term success of an implant treatment program. Purpose: The purpose of this study is to evaluate effect of different load absorbing fixed implant supported restorations on supporting structures. Materials and Methods: Thirty patients with missed maxillary premolar were selected for implant insertion and randomly divided into three groups (n=10) according to the restorative material used which was porcelain fused to metal as control group(GI), polyether ether keton (GII) and Vitaenamic (GIII). Each patient receive one implant (Nucleoss Europe GmbH, Izmir, Turkey) using two stage surgery. After four months, healing abutment inserted for two weeks. Impression was done using indirect closed tray snap on technique. Crowns was cemented with eugenol free provisional cement. Follow up was done for bone height at baseline, 6 months and 12 months using long cone paralleling technique. Plaque score, probing depth and bleeding on probing were detected at 6 months and 12 months follow up period. One-way ANOVA and post hock test (Tukey-test) was used to compare groups in each duration. Kurskal Wallis test, Mann Whitney U test and Wilcoxon test were used to compare non parametric variables. P-value <0.05(*) was considered significant difference & P-value <0.001(**) was considered highly significant difference. Conclusion: Statistically significant difference (P <0.05) was found between GI and GII also between GI and GIII in regard to marginal bone loss (MBL). PD showed highly significant difference between GI&GII and GI&GIII. GII showed the highest Plaque score with significant difference among other groups. Keyword: Implant supported restoration, peek, Vitenamic and marginal bone loss.