| 000 | 02822cam a2200337 a 4500 | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| 003 | EG-GiCUC | ||
| 005 | 20250223032854.0 | ||
| 008 | 211129s2021 ua dh f m 000 0 eng d | ||
| 040 |
_aEG-GiCUC _beng _cEG-GiCUC |
||
| 041 | 0 | _aeng | |
| 049 | _aDeposite | ||
| 097 | _aM.Sc | ||
| 099 | _aCai01.09.13.M.Sc.2021.Hu.C | ||
| 100 | 0 | _aHussein Hatam Jawad | |
| 245 | 1 | 0 |
_aComparison of patient satisfaction and primary implant stability between two different magnetic attachment for implant retained mandibular over denture following immediate loading : _bRandomized clinical trial / _cHussein Hatam Jawad ; Supervised Ahmed Mohamed Alsaed Fahmy , Amr Ahmed Naguib |
| 246 | 1 | 5 | _aالمقارنة فى اقتناع المريض للطقم والثبات الأولى للغرسه بين نوعين من المثبتات على الغرسات فى حالات الأطقم المحمولة فى التحميل الفورى |
| 260 |
_aCairo : _bHussein Hatam Jawad , _c2021 |
||
| 300 |
_a90 P. : _bcharts , facsimiles ; _c25cm |
||
| 502 | _aThesis (M.Sc.) - Cairo University - Faculty of Oral and Dental Medicine - Department of Oral and Mexillofacal Surgery | ||
| 520 | _aAim: The aim of this study is to assess thepatient satisfaction and primary implant stability of dome magnet attachment design over denture versuspatient satisfaction and primary implant stability of flat magnetic attachment design with immediate loading. Methodology: fourteen patients with completely edentulism were enrolled in this study. Each patient received 2 implants between the canine and lateral incisor area in both side region. The implants were loaded immediately with two magnet attachmentretained over-dentures(flat ,dome magnetic attachment).The Patient satisfaction will be measured in 2 week(base line) and after 12 week by Denture satisfaction questionnaire and Implant stability will be measured for both groups using smart peg /osstellat the day of implant installation and after 2,4,8,12 weeks. Results: Regarding Assessment of Patient Satisfaction After Twelve Weeks of Implant Installation, The statistically significant difference between group 1 and group 2 , which indicate that group one show better improvement than group 2. Regarding Amount of Primary Implant Stability Change during Follow Up for both Groups, according to average of two group at eight and twelve week ,we concluded the group 1 more improvement than group 2 | ||
| 530 | _aIssued also as CD | ||
| 653 | 4 | _aMagnetic attachment | |
| 653 | 4 | _aPatient satisfaction | |
| 653 | 4 | _aPrimary implant stability | |
| 700 | 0 |
_aAhmed Mohamed Alsaed Fahmy , _eSupervisor |
|
| 700 | 0 |
_aAmr Ahmed Naguib , _eSupervisor |
|
| 856 | _uhttp://172.23.153.220/th.pdf | ||
| 905 |
_aNazla _eRevisor |
||
| 905 |
_aShimaa _eCataloger |
||
| 942 |
_2ddc _cTH |
||
| 999 |
_c83348 _d83348 |
||