Aim: Comparing titanium framework and BioHPP framework for maxillary implant fixed-supported prostheses Methods: The study was conducted on fourteen patients rehabilitated with maxillary fixed implant-supported prostheses supported by six dental implants. Patients were randomly divided into Group I: maxillary fixed implant-supported using a titanium framework. Group II: maxillary fixed implant supported using the BioHpp framework Cases were evaluated for crestal bone at zero, six, and twelve months and for gingival index and pocket depth at zero, three, six, and twelve months. Results: Overall bone loss in group I was 0.14 mm and 0.12 mm, and in group II, it was 0.18mm and 0.15 mm at 6 months and 12 months, respectively; lower values of bone loss for the titanium framework compared to the BioHPP framework were found but considered statistically insignificant. Gingival index in group I was 0.28, 0.22, 0.18, and in group II it was 0.32, 0.28, 0.22, 0.22, and probing depth in group I was 1.05, 1.5, 1.37, and 1.39, and in group II it was 1.06, 1.4, 1.35, 1.38 at baseline, 3 months, 6 months, and 12 months, respectively, and was found statistically insignificant with better results for the BioHPP framework compared to the titanium framework. Conclusion: BioHPP framework material can substitute titanium when restoring an edentulous maxilla with implants. Keywords: titanium, bioHPP, edentulous maxilla, CAD/CAM.