Cargando…

Combined effect of undersized surgical technique and axial compression on the primary implant stability and host bone architecture

AIM: The aim of this study was to investigate the combined effect of the lateral-compression of host-bone (undersized-osteotomy-preparation) and axial-compression of host-bone (not drilling the full length of the implant) on the primary-implant-stability and the host-bone-architecture. MATERIALS AND...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Tabassum, Afsheen, Meijer, Gert J., Cuijpers, Vincent M.J.I., Frank Walboomers, X.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Elsevier 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8236550/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34194192
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.sdentj.2020.03.004
Descripción
Sumario:AIM: The aim of this study was to investigate the combined effect of the lateral-compression of host-bone (undersized-osteotomy-preparation) and axial-compression of host-bone (not drilling the full length of the implant) on the primary-implant-stability and the host-bone-architecture. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In this experimental-study, 44 dental implants (diameter-4.2 mm; length-10 mm; Dyna®) were installed in the femoral-condyles of four cadaver-goats using four different surgical approaches (11 implant/surgical approach; n = 11). Approach-1: Standard preparation according to the manufacturer's guidelines. The bone-cavity was prepared up to 10 mm in depth and 4 mm in diameter. Approach-2: Preparation up to 8 mm in depth and 4 mm in diameter. Approach-3: Preparation up to 10 mm in depth. Approach-4: The bone-cavity was prepared up to 8 mm in depth and 3.6 mm in diameter. Insertion torque (n = 11), removal torque (n = 7) and % bone-implant contact (n = 4) measurements were recorded. Bone architecture was assessed by micro-computer tomography and histological analysis (n = 4). RESULTS: For approaches 2, 3, and 4 (P < .05), insertion-torque values were significantly higher as compared to approach 1. Regarding the bone-implant-contact percentage (%BIC), approach 3 and 4 were significantly higher compared to approach 1 and 2 (P<.05). For approach 2, the %bone volume (%BV) was significantly higher as compared to approach 1 (P<.05) for the most the inner zone of host bone in proximity of the implant. CONCLUSION: Lateral and axial compression improved the primary-implant-stability and therefore this new surgical-technique should be considered as an alternative approach especially for placing implants in low-density bone. Nevertheless, additional in vivo studies should be performed.