Traditional Postextractive Implant Site Preparation Compared with Pre-extractive Interradicular Implant Bed Preparation in the Mandibular Molar Region, Using an Ultrasonic Device: A Randomized Pilot Study

2017 ◽  
Vol 32 (3) ◽  
pp. 655-660 ◽  
Author(s):  
Antonio Scarano
Materials ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 11 (12) ◽  
pp. 2516 ◽  
Author(s):  
Antonio Scarano ◽  
Francesco Carinci ◽  
Felice Lorusso ◽  
Felice Festa ◽  
Lorenzo Bevilacqua ◽  
...  

Background: Piezosurgery is a surgical procedure that is able to perform osteotomies by a micrometric and selective cut of the bone tissue. The objective of this investigation was to evaluate two different techniques; an ultrasonic device, and a drill approach for implant site preparation. Methods: A total of fifty patients were recruited for the randomized clinical trial to receive dental implants for fixed prosthetic restoration in the posterior mandible and were allotted to two groups. In Group A the implant site was prepared following a drilling technique, while in Group B the implant site was prepared using an ultrasonic device; moreover, the operative duration was recorded. Postoperative pain and swelling were evaluated at 1, 2, 4, and 6 days. The crestal bone resorption was measured at 3 months from implant placement by a three-dimensional tomography evaluation. Results: The findings suggest that osteotomies performed by an ultrasonic device cause less pain and swelling. On the other hand, the piezoelectric preparation was characterized by a significative increase in the operative time. No statistical differences in crestal bone resorption were evident in the two different approaches. Conclusions: According to the outcome of the study, ultrasonic implant bed preparation can be used with success in implantology and could be considered a suitable alternative to traditional drilling techniques for dental fixture placement.


Materials ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 14 (5) ◽  
pp. 1147
Author(s):  
Alessio Danilo Inchingolo ◽  
Angelo Michele Inchingolo ◽  
Ioana Roxana Bordea ◽  
Edit Xhajanka ◽  
Donato Mario Romeo ◽  
...  

Many different osteotomy procedures has been proposed in the literature for dental implant site preparation. The osseodensification is a drilling technique that has been proposed to improve the local bone quality and implant stability in poor density alveolar ridges. This technique determines an expansion of the implant site by increasing the density of the adjacent bone. The aim of the present investigation was to evaluate the effectiveness of the osseodensification technique for implant site preparation through a literature review and meta-analysis. The database electronic research was performed on PubMed (Medline) database for the screening of the scientific papers. A total of 16 articles have been identified suitable for the review and qualitative analysis—11 clinical studies (eight on animals, three on human subjects), four literature reviews, and one case report. The meta-analysis was performed to compare the bone-to-implant contact % (BIC), bone area fraction occupied % (BAFO), and insertion torque of clockwise and counter-clockwise osseodensification procedure in animal studies. The included articles reported a significant increase in the insertion torque of the implants positioned through the osseodensification protocol compared to the conventional drilling technique. Advantages of this new technique are important above all when the patient has a strong missing and/or low quantity of bone tissue. The data collected until the drafting of this paper detect an improvement when the osseodensification has been adopted if compared to the conventional technique. A significant difference in BIC and insertion torque between the clockwise and counter-clockwise osseodensification procedure was reported, with no difference in BAFO measurements between the two approaches. The effectiveness of the present study demonstrated that the osseodensification drilling protocol is a useful technique to obtain increased implant insertion torque and bone to implant contact (BIC) in vivo. Further randomized clinical studies are required to confirm these pieces of evidence in human studies.


2019 ◽  
Vol 45 (4) ◽  
pp. 259-266
Author(s):  
Claudio Stacchi ◽  
Matteo De Biasi ◽  
Lucio Torelli ◽  
Massimo Robiony ◽  
Roberto Di Lenarda ◽  
...  

The primary objective of the present in vitro study was to evaluate the influence of implant site preparation technique (drills vs ultrasonic instrumentation) on the primary stability of short dental implants with two different designs inserted in simulated low-quality cancellous bone. Eighty implant sites were prepared in custom-made solid rigid polyurethane blocks with two different low cancellous bone densities (5 or 15 pounds per cubic foot [PCF]), equally distributed between piezoelectric (Surgysonic Moto, Esacrom, Italy) and conventional drilling techniques. Two short implant systems (Prama and Syra, Sweden & Martina) were tested by inserting 40 fixtures of each system (both 6.0 mm length and 5.0 mm diameter), divided in the four subgroups (drills/5 PCF density; drills/15 PCF density; piezo/5 PCF density; piezo/15 PCF density). Insertion torque (Ncm), implant stability quotient values, removal torque (Ncm), and surgical time were recorded. Data were analyzed by 3-way ANOVA and Scheffé's test (α = 0.05). With slight variations among the considered dependent variables, overall high primary implant stability was observed across all subgroups. Piezoelectric instrumentation allowed for comparable or slightly superior primary stability in comparison with the drilling procedures in both implant systems. The Prama implants group showed the highest mean reverse torque and Syra implants the highest implant stability quotient values. Piezoelectric implant site preparation took prolonged operative time compared to conventional preparation with drills; among the drilling procedures, Syra system required fewer surgical steps and shorter operative time.


2018 ◽  
Vol 2018 ◽  
pp. 1-8 ◽  
Author(s):  
Claudio Stacchi ◽  
Teresa Lombardi ◽  
Domenico Baldi ◽  
Calogero Bugea ◽  
Antonio Rapani ◽  
...  

Aim. To compare implant survival rate and marginal bone loss (MBL) of immediately loaded single implants inserted by using ultrasonic implant site preparation (UISP) (test) and conventional rotary instrumentation (control). Methods. Two single implants were inserted for each patient: after randomization, test site was prepared by using an ultrasonic device (Piezosurgery Touch, Mectron, Italy) and control site was prepared by using the drills of the selected implant system (Premium AZT, Sweden & Martina, Italy), until reaching a final diameter of 3 mm in both groups. Identical implants (3.8x11.5 mm) were inserted in all sites at crestal level. Impressions were taken and screwed resin single crowns with platform-switched provisional abutments were delivered with 48 hours. Periapical radiographs were taken at provisional crown insertion (T0), 6 months (T1) and one year (T2) after prosthetic loading to measure MBL. All data were tested for normality and subsequently analyzed by paired samples t-test and forward multiple linear regression. Results. Forty-eight patients were treated in six centers with the insertion of ninety-six implants (48 test; 48 control). Four implants in four patients failed within the first six months of healing (two in test group; two in control group; no difference between groups). Forty patients (age 60.1±10.7 years; 22 female, 18 male) were included in the final analysis. Mean MBL after six months of loading was 1.39±1.03 mm in the test group and 1.42±1.16 mm in the control group (p>0.05) and after one year was 1.92±1.14 mm and 2.14±1.55 mm in test and control, respectively (p>0.05). Conclusions. No differences in survival rate and MBL were demonstrated between UISP and conventional site preparation with rotary instruments in immediately loaded dental implants: UISP, with its characteristics of enhanced surgical control and safety in proximity of delicate structures, may be used as a reliable alternative to the traditional drilling systems.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document