Primary stability comparison using piezoelectric or conventional implant site preparation systems in cancellous bone: a pilot study.

PURPOSE: This study compares implant primary stability achieved in cancellous bone after placement in piezoelectric prepared sites versus conventionally drilled sites. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Four bovine ribs were randomly assigned and placed in a water bath at 36.5 °C. Five sites per rib (total n = 20 sites) were prepared using piezoelectric system (test) or conventional drills (control) with twenty 10 × 3.6-mm Implantium implants placed. Using Osstell Mentor quantitative analysis, 5 resonance frequency analysis [implant stability quotient {ISQ}] values per implant were recorded at 5 locations for a total of 100 measurements. RESULTS: Independent t test analysis indicated significant difference in primary stabilities between groups: t (17) = 2.637, P = 0.17, with equal variance assumption satisfied (P = 0.196). Examination of means indicated a higher mean ISQ for piezoelectric than for conventional: 58.9 (+8.55) versus 49.2 (+7.33), respectively. Analysis of variance indicated a significant difference in mean ISQ value by rib. Tukey test indicated significantly higher ISQ values for rib A (test) than ribs B, C (control), and D (test). CONCLUSION: Implant site preparation using the piezoelectric system gives higher implant primary stability in cancellous bone. However, variations in quality across bones may have affected the results.

Piezoelectric vs. conventional implant site preparation: ex vivo implant primary stability.

OBJECTIVES: This study aims to determine differences in primary stability between implants placed in cortical bone following Piezoelectric or conventional site preparation, as assessed by resonance frequency analysis (RFA) and reverse torque testing (RTT). MATERIAL AND METHODS: Four fresh bovine ribs were acquired and surgical guides fabricated with five sites per rib (n = 20), for proper site preparation. Implant sites were prepared via conventional drilling technique as per manufacturer's instruction (Implantium) or via Piezoelectric (Mectron) implant site preparation using the Implant Prep kit. Twenty 10 mm long, 3.6 mm diameter Implantium implants were placed with 35 Ncm torque; 10 implants per preparation method. RFA was assessed via the Osstell Mentor. Five values were taken per implant. All implants where subjected to a reverse torque in increasing increments of 5 until 50 Ncm force was reached. RESULTS: The five RFA values per site were averaged and plotted by placement technique. A paired t-test statistical analysis was run. The average RFA values showed no statistical significance between the 10 test (RFA = 69.04 ± 5.11) and 10 control (RFA = 70.94 ± 6.41) sites (P > 0.05). All implants in both groups withstood RTT up to 50 Ncm force without movement and thus showed no statistical differences. CONCLUSION: Results of this ex vivo study imply that the Piezoelectric implant site preparation affords similar primary implant stability in comparison to conventional rotary instrumentation in cortical bone.