RESUMEN
This study aimed to evaluate various biomechanical parameters associated with the primary stability of Maestro and Due Cone implants placed in low-density artificial bones, prepared using high-speed drilling with irrigation and low-speed drilling without irrigation. The insertion torque (IT), removal torque (RT), and implant stability quotient (ISQ) values were recorded for Maestro and Due Cone implants placed in low-density polyurethane blocks (10 and 20 pounds per cubic foot (PCF) with and without a cortical layer) prepared using high-speed and low-speed with or without irrigation using a saline solution, respectively. A three-way ANOVA model and Tukey's post-hoc test were conducted, presenting data as means and standard deviations. P-values equal to or less than 0.05 were considered statistically significant. No statistically significant differences in IT, RT, and ISQ between drilling speeds were observed. However, Maestro implants exhibited lower IT and RT values after high- and low-speed drilling across almost all polyurethane blocks, significantly evident in the 20 PCF density block for IT and in the 20 PCF density block with the cortical layer for the RT with low-speed drilling (IT: 47.33 ± 10.02 Ncm and 16.00 ± 12.49 Ncm for Due Cone and Maestro implants, respectively, with p < 0.01; RT: 44.67 ± 22.81 Ncm and 20.01 ± 4.36 Ncm for Due Cone and Maestro implants, respectively, with p < 0.05) and among the same implant types inserted in different bone densities. Additionally, the study found that for all bone densities and drilling speeds, both implants registered ISQ values exceeding 60, except for the lowest-density polyurethane block. Overall, it can be inferred that low-speed drilling without irrigation achieved biomechanical parameters similar to conventional drilling with both implant types, even with lower IT values in the case of Maestro implants. These findings suggest a promising potential use of low-speed drilling without irrigation in specific clinical scenarios, particularly when focusing on preparation depth or when ensuring proper irrigation is challenging.
RESUMEN
The aim of this study was to clinically evaluate the guided bone regeneration (GBR) potential of allograft, xenograft, and alloplastic materials in combination with resorbable membranes in extraction sockets. The qualitative and quantitative assessments of this prospective study were accomplished through histologic and histomorphometric analysis. Three experimental groups and 1 control group for comparison (n = 8) received either an allograft (human cancellous bone, freeze dried, Deutsches Institut für Zell und Gewebeersatz, Berlin, Germany), xenograft (BioOss, Geistlich Pharma AG, Wolhusen, Switzerland), or alloplast (biphasic calcium sulphate, Bondbone, MIS Implants Technologies Ltd., Charlotte, NC). The negative control group received no regenerative material. Tissue samples were then qualitatively and quantitatively evaluated as a function of percentage of new vital bone, graft particles content, soft tissue, and bone marrow over time. All 3 study groups presented bone volume suitable for the successful placement of a dental implant. The xenograft group yielded significantly less amount of vital bone compared with the allograft and alloplast groups. When comparing the percentage of residual graft particles, there was significantly greater amounts associated with the xenograft group in contrast to the allograft and alloplast groups. Similarly, a significantly increased amount of soft tissue percentage was observed within the xenograft group relative to all other groups. No significant differences were observed in the percentage of residual graft particles between the allograft and alloplast groups. There were also no significant differences detected in vital bone percentage between the allograft, alloplast, and control groups. When evaluating the bone marrow percentage, the only significant difference detected was between the xenograft and alloplast materials. Overall, no complications (ie, fever, malaise, purulence or fistula) were observed during the entirety of clinical trial among all patients. The greatest GBR potential was associated with the allograft material because of the greater degree of vital bone and the lowest percentage of residual graft particles. All studied bone substitute materials resulted in bone apposition for efficient use in alveolar ridge preservation procedures.
Asunto(s)
Aumento de la Cresta Alveolar , Alveolo Dental , Humanos , Xenoinjertos , Alveolo Dental/cirugía , Estudios Prospectivos , Trasplante Homólogo , Aumento de la Cresta Alveolar/métodos , Trasplante Óseo/métodos , Extracción Dental , Aloinjertos/patología , Aloinjertos/trasplante , Membranas ArtificialesRESUMEN
PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to qualitatively and quantitatively assess the effect of osteotomy preparation by conventional, subtractive, or osseodensification instrumentation on osteotomies, treated with or without endosteal implants, and healing capacity. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Seven sheep were used, and 56 osteotomies were made in the left and right ilium of the sheep (n = 8/sheep [4 per side/time point (3 and 6 weeks)]). Two different instrumentation techniques were used: (1) conventional/regular drilling in a three-step series of a 2-mm pilot and 3.2-mm and 3.8-mm twist drills and (2) osseodensification drilling with a Densah Bur 2.0-mm pilot and 2.8-mm and 3.8-mm multi-fluted tapered burs. Drilling was performed at 1,100 rpm with saline irrigation. RESULTS: Qualitative histomorphometric evaluation of the osteotomies after 3 and 6 weeks did not indicate any healing impairment due to the instrumentation. In all samples, histologic examination suggested bone remodeling and growth (empty and treated with an implant), irrespective of preparation technique. Osteotomies prepared using the osseodensification instrumentation showed the existence of bone chips autografted into the trabecular spaces along the length of the osteotomy wall. CONCLUSION: The osseodensification group yielded higher osseointegration rates, as distinguished through qualitative assessment, bone-to-implant contact, and bone-area-fraction occupancy, indicating an increased osteogenic potential in osteotomies prepared using the osseodensification technique.
Asunto(s)
Implantes Dentales , Oseointegración , Animales , Implantación Dental Endoósea , Ilion , Osteotomía , OvinosRESUMEN
OBJECTIVES: The aims of this study were to compare the initial implant stability obtained using four different osteotomy techniques in low-density synthetic bone, to evaluate the instrument design in comparison to the implant design, and to determinate a possible correlation between the insertion torque and initial stability quotient (ISQ). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Four groups were identified in accordance with the osteotomy technique used (n = 10 implants per group): group G1, osteotomy using the recommended drilling sequence; group G2, osteotomy using an undersized compactor drill; group G3, osteotomy using an undersized drill; and group G4, osteotomy using universal osseodensification drills. Two polyurethane blocks were used: block 1, with a medullary portion of 10 pounds per cubic foot (PCF 10) and with a 1 mm cortical portion of PCF 40, and block 2, with a medullary of PCF 15 and with a 2 mm cortical portion of PCF 40. Tapered implants of 4 mm in diameter and 11 mm in length were used. The insertion torque (IT) and ISQ were measured. The dimensions of the final instrument used in each group and the dimensions of the implant were used to calculate the total area of each part, and these data were compared. RESULTS: Differences between the four groups were found for IT and ISQ values depending on the technique used for the osteotomy in the two synthetic bone models (p < 0.0001). All groups showed lower values of initial stability in block 1 than in block 2. CONCLUSIONS: Undersized osteotomies with instruments designed according to the implant body significantly increased the initial stability values compared to beds prepared with universal drills and using the drilling sequence standardized by the manufacturer.