Temperatures generated during implant site preparation with conventional drilling versus single-drill method: an ex-vivo human mandible study

Comparison of Maximum Heat Generation during Implant Site Preparation between Single and Gradual Drilling Protocols in Artificial D1 Bone Blocks: An In Vitro Study

Aim

Two protocols for implant site preparation have been demonstrated in the literature: conventional gradual drilling and single drilling.

Objectives

The purpose of this study is to assess the maximum temperature changes reached during and after implant site preparation of 4.2 implant diameter using the gradual drilling protocol and single drilling protocol. Material and Methods. The artificial bone block samples (#1522-23; Sawbones, Malmö, Sweden) with the density of d1 were divided into two groups. Twelve implant site preparations were performed with the use of only one drill in group A, and the same number of preparations was performed using five gradual drills in group B. The drilling speed was set for each group at 1500 rpm with the use of external irrigation with a constant of 50 ml/min at room temperature (25 ± 1°C). The maximum temperature changes were measured using an infrared camera (Fluke Ti55, USA). The data were gathered and analyzed using Student's t-test for independent samples.

Results

With the 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for the means of ∆T between groups A and B, group B showed a statistically significant higher temperature change (∆T) than group A.

Conclusions

The current outcomes propose that the single drilling protocol, while preparing a bed for a 4.25 mm dental implant in d1 artificial bone blocks, generates less heat than the conventional gradual drilling protocol.

Osseodensification Drilling vs. Standard Protocol of Implant Site Preparation: An In Vitro Study on Polyurethane Foam Sheets

(1) Background: The aim of the present in vitro investigation was to evaluate, on polyurethane sheets, two different drilling techniques for dental implant positioning using osteocondensing burs compared to a standard type protocol. (2) Methods: Three different implant designs (Implacil De Bortoli UN III 4 × 10 mm, Restore RBM 4 (HEX) × 10 mm; Implacil De Bortoli UN II 4 × 10 mm) were evaluated (test implant (osteocondensing drills) and control implant (standard drills)). The insertion torque (IT), the removal torque (RT) and the resonance frequency analysis (RFA) values of test and control implants inserted in different size and different density polyurethane foam models were compared for 120 experimental sites. Accordingly, 120 experimental holes were produced in different PCF polyurethane foams: 60 sites were produced in 10 PCF sheets and 60 sites in 10 PCF sheets with an additional 1 mm layer of 30 PCF. (3) Results: The IT, removal torque and RFA values were significantly higher for both of the evaluated implants, in the sites prepared with the osteocondenser drills when compared to sites prepared with standard drills (p < 0.05). The UNII and UN III showed significantly higher stability compared to the HEX implant; these differences increased drastically in the 10 PCF Polyurethane Block with the additional 1 mm cortical layer (p < 0.05). (4) Conclusions: The outcome of this investigation suggested a possible clinical application of osteocondensing burs in case of reduced bone quality and quantity in the posterior maxilla.