Cargando…
Piezoelectric Implant Site Preparation: Influence of Handpiece Movements on Temperature Elevation
Piezoelectric devices are widely used in oral surgical procedures, including implant site preparation. However, little is known about the influence of working movement on temperature elevation in bone. The aim of this study was to assess the effects of two different working cycles on temperature ele...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
MDPI
2020
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7560358/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32937785 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ma13184072 |
Sumario: | Piezoelectric devices are widely used in oral surgical procedures, including implant site preparation. However, little is known about the influence of working movement on temperature elevation in bone. The aim of this study was to assess the effects of two different working cycles on temperature elevation during piezoelectric implant site preparation. Sixty osteotomies at a depth of 10 mm were performed on bone blocks of bovine ribs using a piezoelectric tip with external irrigation (IM1s, Mectron Medical Technology, Carasco, Italy). A mechanical positioning device was used to guarantee reproducible working and measuring conditions. Two different working cycles, of 4 and 6 s, respectively, were tested, including both longitudinal and rotational movements. Temperature was recorded in real time with a fiber optic thermometer and applied pressure was maintained under 150 g. For each test, the highest recorded temperature (T(max)) and the mean temperature recorded from 30 s before to 30 s after the highest recorded temperature (T(±30)) were extrapolated. Tests duration was also recorded. Both T(max) and T(±30) were significantly higher in the ‘6 s cycles’ group than the ‘4 s cycles’ group (42.44 ± 7.3 °C vs. 37.24 ± 4.6 °C, p = 0.002; 37.24 ± 4.6 °C vs. 33.30 ± 3.3 °C, p = 0.003). Test duration was also significantly higher using 6 s cycles compared to 4 s cycles (143.17 ± 29.4 s vs. 119.80 ± 36.4 s, p = 0.002). The results of this study indicate that working cycles of 4 s effectively reduce heat generation and working time during piezoelectric implant site preparation. |
---|