Comparison of conventional twist drill protocol and piezosurgery for implant insertion: an ex vivo study on different bone types. Issue 2 (22nd January 2016)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Sagheb, Keyvan; Kumar, Vinay V.; Azaripour, Adriano; Walter, Christian; Al‐Nawas, Bilal; Kämmerer, Peer W.
• Is Part Of: Clinical oral implants research. Volume 28:Issue 2(2017)
• Page Start: 207
• Page End: 213
• Publication Date: 2016-01-22
• Subjects: biomechanics -- bone quality -- bone implant interactions -- piezosurgery -- surgical techniques; Dental implants -- Research -- Periodicals; 617.69
• DOI: 10.1111/clr.12783
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0905-7161

Abstract

Abstract: Objective: The aim of this ex vivo study was to compare implant insertion procedures using piezosurgery and conventional drilling in different qualities of bone. Implant bed preparation time, generated heat, and primary implant stability were analyzed. Material and methods: Fresh ex vivo porcine bone block samples (cancellous, mixed, and cortical bone) were obtained. The bone quality was quantified by ultrasound transmission velocity (UTV). Each bone sample received three implants of the same diameter using each of the techniques of piezosurgery and conventional twist drills. Time for preparation was taken and the temperature while performing the osteotomy was measured using infrared spectroscopy. The primary implant stability after osteotomy was measured using resonance frequency analysis (RFA) and extrusion torque (ET). ANOVA with post hoc Tukey test was carried out to compare the values for the three different groups. Results: The UTV values strongly correlated with the density of the bone samples. There was a significant increase in time (threefold, P < 0.05 [302 s vs. 122 s in cortical bone]) but no difference in the temperature for the piezo group (~37°C in cortical bone). Regardless of the osteotomy technique, there was a statistically significant increase in RFA and ET values in implants inserted in cancellous bone (RFA: piezo 77, drill 76; ET: piezo 22, drill 21), mixed bone (RFA: piezo 85, drill 86; ET: piezo 105, drill 61), and cortical bone (RFA: piezo 90, drill 87; ET piezo 184, drill 79) samples, respectively ( P < 0.05). In between the different osteotomy groups, there was no difference in the RFA values but significant higher ET values in mixed/cortical bone samples in favor for the piezosurgery group. Conclusion: Piezosurgery and conventional implant bed drilling procedure do have similar mechanical outcomes regarding primary stability with high RFA values, but the preparation does need more time for piezosurgery group, so that piezosurgery might be a valuable tool in only very specific cases for implant bed preparation.