Implant Bridge Rehabilitations: Equator Profile Vs Multi Unit Abutment.

Objective: The aim of this clinical study was to compare innovative OT Equator Profile (EP) Attachment (Rhein83, Bologna, Italy) with MUA supporting full arch implant rehabilitations. The evaluations regard: patient satisfaction, number of clinical sessions, prosthetic complications, survival rates. Method: The 15 Participating Patients (7 males, 8 females, mean age 70 ±10years) with full-arch implant retained by OT EP Attachment (4 males,4 females) and MUA (3 males, 4 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. Patient’s 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 4.35 ± 0.37 for EP reahabilitations and 4.25 ±0.26 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 EP and MUA get the same clinical findings in terms of patient satisfaction and prosthetic success; Equator Profile has shown more versatility and ease of use in the management of implant with limited parallel and prosthetic phases.