Biomechanical and histologic basis of osseodensification drilling for endosteal implant placement in low density bone. An experimental study in sheep. (October 2016)
- Record Type:
- Journal Article
- Title:
- Biomechanical and histologic basis of osseodensification drilling for endosteal implant placement in low density bone. An experimental study in sheep. (October 2016)
- Main Title:
- Biomechanical and histologic basis of osseodensification drilling for endosteal implant placement in low density bone. An experimental study in sheep
- Authors:
- Lahens, Bradley
Neiva, Rodrigo
Tovar, Nick
Alifarag, Adham M.
Jimbo, Ryo
Bonfante, Estevam A.
Bowers, Michelle M.
Cuppini, Marla
Freitas, Helora
Witek, Lukasz
Coelho, Paulo G. - Abstract:
- Abstract: A bone drilling concept, namely osseodensification, has been introduced for the placement of endosteal implants to increase primary stability through densification of the osteotomy walls. This study investigated the effect of osseodensification on the initial stability and early osseointegration of conical and parallel walled endosteal implants in low density bone. Five male sheep were used. Three implants were inserted in the ilium, bilaterally, totaling 30 implants ( n =15 conical, and n =15 parallel). Each animal received 3 implants of each type, inserted into bone sites prepared as follows: (i) regular-drilling (R: 2 mm pilot, 3.2 mm, and 3.8 mm twist drills), (ii) clockwise osseodensification (CW), and (iii) counterclockwise (CCW) osseodensification drilling with Densah Bur (Versah, Jackson, MI, USA): 2.0 mm pilot, 2.8 mm, and 3.8 mm multi-fluted burs. Insertion torque as a function of implant type and drilling technique, revealed higher values for osseodensification relative to R-drilling, regardless of implant macrogeometry. A significantly higher bone-to-implant contact (BIC) for both osseodensification techniques ( p <0.05) was observed compared to R-drilling. There was no statistical difference in BIC as a function of implant type ( p =0.58), nor in bone-area-fraction occupancy (BAFO) as a function of drilling technique ( p =0.22), but there were higher levels of BAFO for parallel than conic implants ( p =0.001). Six weeks after surgery, new boneAbstract: A bone drilling concept, namely osseodensification, has been introduced for the placement of endosteal implants to increase primary stability through densification of the osteotomy walls. This study investigated the effect of osseodensification on the initial stability and early osseointegration of conical and parallel walled endosteal implants in low density bone. Five male sheep were used. Three implants were inserted in the ilium, bilaterally, totaling 30 implants ( n =15 conical, and n =15 parallel). Each animal received 3 implants of each type, inserted into bone sites prepared as follows: (i) regular-drilling (R: 2 mm pilot, 3.2 mm, and 3.8 mm twist drills), (ii) clockwise osseodensification (CW), and (iii) counterclockwise (CCW) osseodensification drilling with Densah Bur (Versah, Jackson, MI, USA): 2.0 mm pilot, 2.8 mm, and 3.8 mm multi-fluted burs. Insertion torque as a function of implant type and drilling technique, revealed higher values for osseodensification relative to R-drilling, regardless of implant macrogeometry. A significantly higher bone-to-implant contact (BIC) for both osseodensification techniques ( p <0.05) was observed compared to R-drilling. There was no statistical difference in BIC as a function of implant type ( p =0.58), nor in bone-area-fraction occupancy (BAFO) as a function of drilling technique ( p =0.22), but there were higher levels of BAFO for parallel than conic implants ( p =0.001). Six weeks after surgery, new bone formation along with remodeling sites was observed for all groups. Bone chips in proximity with the implants were seldom observed in the R-drilling group, but commonly observed in the CW, and more frequently under the CCW osseodensification technique. In low-density bone, endosteal implants present higher insertion torque levels when placed in osseodensification drilling sites, with no osseointegration impairment compared to standard subtractive drilling methods. … (more)
- Is Part Of:
- Journal of the mechanical behavior of biomedical materials. Volume 63(2016)
- Journal:
- Journal of the mechanical behavior of biomedical materials
- Issue:
- Volume 63(2016)
- Issue Display:
- Volume 63, Issue 2016 (2016)
- Year:
- 2016
- Volume:
- 63
- Issue:
- 2016
- Issue Sort Value:
- 2016-0063-2016-0000
- Page Start:
- 56
- Page End:
- 65
- Publication Date:
- 2016-10
- Subjects:
- Biomedical materials -- Periodicals
Biomedical materials -- Mechanical properties -- Periodicals
Biomedical materials
Biomedical materials -- Mechanical properties
Periodicals
Electronic journals
610.28 - Journal URLs:
- http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/17516161 ↗
http://www.elsevier.com/journals ↗ - DOI:
- 10.1016/j.jmbbm.2016.06.007 ↗
- Languages:
- English
- ISSNs:
- 1751-6161
- Deposit Type:
- Legaldeposit
- View Content:
- Available online (eLD content is only available in our Reading Rooms) ↗
- Physical Locations:
- British Library DSC - 5015.809000
British Library DSC - BLDSS-3PM
British Library HMNTS - ELD Digital store - Ingest File:
- 1058.xml