Premium
The effect of osseodensification drilling for endosteal implants with different surface treatments: A study in sheep
Author(s) -
Lahens Bradley,
Lopez Christopher D.,
Neiva Rodrigo F.,
Bowers Michelle M.,
Jimbo Ryo,
Bonfante Estevam A.,
Morcos Jonathan,
Witek Lukasz,
Tovar Nick,
Coelho Paulo G.
Publication year - 2019
Publication title -
journal of biomedical materials research part b: applied biomaterials
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.665
H-Index - 108
eISSN - 1552-4981
pISSN - 1552-4973
DOI - 10.1002/jbm.b.34154
Subject(s) - osseointegration , drilling , implant , materials science , dentistry , biomedical engineering , medicine , surgery , metallurgy
This study investigated the effects of osseodensification drilling on the stability and osseointegration of machine‐cut and acid‐etched endosteal implants in low‐density bone. Twelve sheep received six implants inserted into the ilium, bilaterally ( n = 36 acid‐etched, and n = 36 as‐machined). Individual animals received three implants of each surface, placed via different surgical techniques: (1) subtractive regular‐drilling (R): 2.0 mm pilot, 3.2 and 3.8 mm twist drills); (2) osseodensification clockwise‐drilling (CW): Densah Bur (Versah, Jackson, MI) 2.0 mm pilot, 2.8, and 3.8 mm multifluted tapered burs; and (3) osseodensification counterclockwise‐drilling (CCW) Densah Bur 2.0 mm pilot, 2.8 mm, and 3.8 mm multifluted tapered burs. Insertion torque was higher in the CCW and CW‐drilling compared to the R‐drilling ( p < 0.001). Bone‐to‐implant contact (BIC) was significantly higher for CW ( p = 0.024) and CCW‐drilling ( p = 0.006) compared to the R‐drilling technique. For CCW‐osseodensification‐drilling, no statistical difference between the acid‐etched and machine‐cut implants at both time points was observed for BIC and BAFO (bone‐area‐fraction‐occupancy). Resorbed bone and bone forming precursors, preosteoblasts, were observed at 3‐weeks. At 12‐weeks, new bone formation was observed in all groups extending to the trabecular region. In low‐density bone, endosteal implants inserted via osseodensification‐drilling presented higher stability and no osseointegration impairments compared to subtractive regular‐drilling technique, regardless of evaluation time or implant surface. © 2018 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J Biomed Mater Res Part B: Appl Biomater 107B: 615–623, 2019.