الفهرس 
AbstractOnly 14 pages are availabe for public view
 |  | from | 197 |  |  |
| | | from | 197 | | |
Abstract
Purpose : Evaluation of the accuracy of digital implant assisted lower complete overdenture using two different pick-up techniques. Materials and methods : A completely edentulous mandibular epoxy model was scanned and the STL file was saved for digitally design a surgical guide. The model was duplicated into seven casts, scanned and the STL files were saved for digitally design and fabricate a complete denture. Two implant analogs were installed in the interforaminal area of the previously used epoxy model. For future evaluation, the model was scanned and saved as STL file. The model with implant was duplicated into seven casts which were scanned and saved as STL files for design and fabricate implant assisted complete overdenture. The attachments incorporation was done for digital complete denture that was done before implant installation and this was the first group, while second group attachment incorporation was done after implant installation for implant assisted overdenture. Concerning trueness, each denture’s STL file was superimposed over its original design. For precision evaluation, superimposition the identical scan of dentures for each group by using Geomagic software. The gap distance between the intaglio surface of the denture and reference model was measured to evaluate the accuracy and adaptation. Data was collected and tabulated. Statistical analysis was done using statistical package for social sciences (SPSS version 26). Results : The statistical analysis showed high significant difference between both groups as regards trueness (deviation of scanned dentures from its original design). For precision (deviation of scanned dentures to each other in same group), there was high significant difference between both groups with less mean deviation value of group II. For tissue surface adaptation at selected areas, there was no significant difference between both groups except at implant area. For group I, the left implant showed more pressure than right implant, while both implants in group II showed no significant difference. When comparing both groups, the average surface adaptation values at right and left implant area showed significant difference with less average values in group II. Conclusion : group II has better trueness, precision and surface tissue adaptation than group I. The overall fit in group II is better than group I.