Does the Drilling Technique for Implant Site Preparation Enhance Implant Success in Low-Density Bone? A Systematic Review

Emerging factors affecting peri-implant bone metabolism

Implant dentistry has evolved to the point that standard implant osseointegration is predictable. This is attributed in part to the advancements in material sciences that have led toward improvements in implant surface technology and characteristics. Nonetheless, there remain several cases where implant therapy fails (specifically at early time points), most commonly attributed to factors affecting bone metabolism. Among these patients, smokers are known to have impaired bone metabolism and thus be subject to higher risks of early implant failure and/or late complications related to the stability of the peri-implant bone and mucosal tissues. Notably, however, emerging data have unveiled other critical factors affecting osseointegration, namely, those related to the metabolism of bone tissues. The aim of this review is to shed light on the effects of implant-related factors, like implant surface or titanium particle release; surgical-related factors, like osseodensification or implanted biomaterials; various drugs, like selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors, proton pump inhibitors, anti-hypertensives, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory medication, and statins, and host-related factors, like smoking, diet, and metabolic syndrome on bone metabolism, and aseptic peri-implant bone loss. Despite the infectious nature of peri-implant biological complications, these factors must be surveyed for the effective prevention and management of peri-implantitis.

Breakthroughs in Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery

In the field of oral and maxillofacial surgery, continuous advances have ushered in a new era of innovation, profoundly influencing this branch of medicine [...].

A Comparative Assessment of Primary Implant Stability Using Osseodensification vs. Conventional Drilling Methods: A Systematic Review

Osseodensification is a novel biomechanical bone preparation technique that has been established to replace conventional bone drilling and therefore will optimize the implant site. The purpose of this systematic review was to compare the implant stability obtained by osseodensification drilling to those associated with conventional drilling techniques. An electronic search was performed in the PubMed, Scopus, EMBASE, Cochrane Oral Health Group, and Dentistry and Oral Science Source databases searched through Elton B. Stephens Company (EBSCO) for potentially relevant publications in the English language from January 2013 to December 2022. Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) and non-randomized studies of interventions (NRSIs), contrasting osseodensification drilling with conventional drilling, studies documenting implant stability quotient (ISQ), and studies reporting the immediate outcome and at least three months of follow-up after dental implant placement were included. Two independent investigators evaluated the quality of the reviewed studies to determine the risk of bias using the version 2 of Cochrane risk-of-bias (RoB) tool for RCTs (RoB 2) and RoB for NRSIs (ROBINS-I). Majority of the studies showed that bone density was significantly higher in the osseodensification group. The overall RoB for the NRSIs was reported to be low with respect to confounding, selection, classification, incomplete data, deviance from interventions, outcome evaluation, and selective reporting. The quality assessment of the RCT studies included in the review using the RoB 2 tool showed a high overall risk. The findings of the current review reveal that osseodensification drilling exhibited higher resonance frequency analysis (RFA) and ISQ values than conventional drilling protocols. Similarly, when osseodensification regions were contrasted with traditional drilling, bone density at the implant surface was augmented.

Primary implant stability based on alternative site preparation techniques: A systematic review and meta-analysis

AIM

To evaluate the effect of special implant site preparation methods in improving primary implant stability in low-density bone.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

This meta-analysis included studies published in English and Mandarin Chinese up to March 31, 2022 from MEDLINE/PubMed, Embase, Scopus, and Wanfang databases. The primary stability of five site preparation methods were measured using implant stability quotient. The random-effects model was chosen for data analysis. Grading of recommendations assessment, development, and evaluation assessment was adopted as a collective grading of the overall body of evidence.

RESULTS

12 of the 17 studies included in the meta-analysis were randomized control trials. Three studies investigated osseodensification drilling (OD), eight studies examined osteotome technique (OT), five studies explored piezosurgery (PS), and four studies were conducted on under-drilling (UD). Meta-analysis showed a statistically significant increase in primary stability for the OD (mean difference [MD], 10.25; 95% CI: 4.97-15.52; p < 0.001), OT (MD, 6.34; 95% CI: 2.26-10.42; p = 0.002), and UD (MD, 11.43; 95% CI: 5.17-17.68; p < 0.001) groups when compared to the conventional drilling group, while the PS group did not (MD, 1.50; 95% CI: -2.54-5.54; p = 0.47).

CONCLUSION

Significantly higher primary implant stability was shown in the OD, UD, and OT groups compared to the conventional drilling group. PS displayed the least favorable primary stability and when compared to conventional drilling, was not statistically significant.

The Relation between Morphology of Maxillary Sinus after Augmentation in Three Classification Methods and Residual Bone Height: A Retrospective Study

Maxillary sinus augmentation is critical to oral implantology, particularly in some cases. The morphology of the sinus floor reflects the lifting effect to a certain extent; however, there has been limited research on the morphology after sinus augmentation. The present study aims to investigate the relationship between residual bone height (RBH) and the morphology of the sinus floor and determine whether a correlation exists between the different evaluation classifications. Maxillary sinus floor augmentation procedures were performed in 56 patients and 68 teeth using the sinus crest approach (SCA). Imaging results obtained after one year of sinus augmentation were analyzed and simultaneously classified along the coronal plane, the sagittal plane, and the biplane (coronal-sagittal). The higher the RBH, the closer the result tends to be to A, A', or type 1 (more satisfactory). There was a significant correlation between the three different evaluation classifications (p < 0.05). The morphology of perforation cases was involved in types C, D, C', and D'. A more satisfactory post-lifting morphology (tent type and flat type) is probably related to an optimal preoperative bone height, and an unsatisfactory post-lifting morphology is related to a low preoperative sinus floor height. The sagittal plane evaluation correlates with the coronal plane and biplane evaluation and is thus more recommended.

Comparison of Primary Stability of Implants Installed by Two Different Methods in D3 and D4 Bone Types: An In Vitro Study

Objective:

The purpose of the study is to assess the method of implant insertion in D3 and D4 bones and influence of insertion torque for achieving better primary implant stability.

Materials and Methods:

A total of 32 specimens (wood blocks) simulating D4 and D3 bone were grouped into 1, 2, 3, and 4. In groups 1 and 3, the implant and abutment were placed by manual method while in groups 2 and 4 by motor-driven method. The osteotomy site was prepared as per the protocol for soft bone, and implants were placed till the implant platform was in flush with the surface of the block. After achieving a standard insertion torque of 40 N.cm, pullout test was carried out with a universal testing machine and results were analyzed by one-way analysis of variance.

Results:

An intergroup comparison of peak loads revealed an overall statistically significant difference (P < 0.0001) with a mean of 442.638 N, maximum in group 4 and least (202.963 N) in group 1. The mean elongation break was found to be maximum in group 3 samples (81.67600%) and less in group 4 (37.15113%). Intergroup comparison of Young’s modulus was statistically significant (P < 0.0001) with a mean value found to be minimum among group 1 samples (597.54750 MPa) and maximum in group 2 (1056.76463 MPa). An intergroup comparison of yield points was found to be maximum among group 4 samples (16.17238MPa) and least in group 1 (5.77438MPa).

Conclusion:

The D3 bone sample provided greater primary stability of implant than D4 bone samples, and the motor-driven implant seemed to have improved stability than that placed manually.