Equator Profile Vs MUA In Toronto Bridge Rehabilitations: Comparative Evaluation

Objective:The purpose of this clinical study was to compare innovative Bononia Implant System Equator Profile (EP) Attachment with MUA supporting full arch implant rehabilitations. The evaluation regard: patient satisfaction, number of clinical sessions, prosthetic complications, survival rates. Method:The 8 Participating Patients (3 males, 5 females, mean age 68 ±10years) with full-arch implant retained by Innovative Rehabilitations Rhein83 Equator Profile Attachment (1 males, 3 females) and MUA (2 males, 2 females) participated in this clinical study. From 4 to 8 implants were placed in edentulous arch . Fixed Provisional rehabilitations are loaded immediately. Prosthetic rehabilitation was final realized after 6 weeks. Were compared the overall technical time to realize the final prosthesis with the two methods. Patients' satisfaction was evaluated with a questionnaire with a VAS from 1 to 5. Survival rates and maintenance procedures or prosthetic complications were also recorded during the follow-up period. Result:Patient satisfaction was 4.40 ± 0.40 for EP reahabilitations and 4.35 ±0.42 for MUA reahabilitations . The number of technical passages and time of realization with both methods resulted Significantly Reduced Compared to conventional procedures. During a mean observation time of 24 ± 2 months no implant was lost and no peri-implantitis occurred (100% survival rate). Maintenance: No prosthetic complication occurred. Conclusion:We can conclude that Rhein83 EP and MUA get the same clinical findings in terms of patient satisfaction and prosthetic success; Profile Equator has shown more versatility and ease of use in the management of implant with limited parallel and prosthetic phases.