Splinted implants with bar is superior for force distribution and decreasing the load on the anterior edentulous ridge area. There is a controversy which impression material and technique will enhance the passive fitness of the bar- abutments connection and its effect on the marginal bone level. Objective: The aim of this study was to evaluate marginal bone loss of two implant-retained Bar mandibular overdenture utilizing two different impression materials (Vinyl Polyether Silicone versus additional silicone) with two impression techniques (splinting and non-splinting). Materials and Methods: Twenty completely edentulous patients were restored with implant retained Bar overdentures. They were divided into 2 main groups and two subgroups: Group (I): Divided into two subgroups Group (I.A): 5 patient receive two implants with bar retained mandibular overdenture opposing maxillary complete denture with final impression technique made by Vinyl Polyether Silioxaine (VPES) with splinting technique. Group (I.B): 5 patient receive two implants with bar retained mandibular overdenture opposing maxillary complete denture with final impression technique made by polyvinyl silicone with splinting technique. Group (II): Divided into two subgroups Group (II.A): 5 patient receive two implants with bar retained mandibular overdenture opposing maxillary complete denture with final impression technique made by Vinyl Polyether Silioxaine (VPES) without splinting. Group (II.B): 5 patient receive two implants with bar retained mandibular overdenture opposing maxillary complete denture with final impression technique made by polyvinyl silicone without splinting. Follow up: Bone loss evaluation around the 2 implants was done using measurements on digital periapical radiograph with long cone paralleling technique for one year (at loading, 3, 6 ,9, 12 months). Results: After mean percentage change calculation, independent t-test was performed to Determine the significance between both groups which concluded that there was significant difference between all groups as (P-value < 0.05). Conclusion: The marginal bone loss in the group of Vinyl Polyether Silioxaine (VPES) with splinting was the least compared to the other three groups (Vinyl Polyether Silioxaine (VPES) without splinting, polyvinyl silioxane with splinting Group) while the marginal bone loss in the group of polyvinyl silioxane without splinting was the greatest.