Premium
Implant Survival after Preparation of the Implant Site Using a Single Bur: A Case Series
Author(s) -
Bettach Raphaèl,
Taschieri Silvio,
Boukhris Gilles,
Del Fabbro Massimo
Publication year - 2015
Publication title -
clinical implant dentistry and related research
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.338
H-Index - 85
eISSN - 1708-8208
pISSN - 1523-0899
DOI - 10.1111/cid.12082
Subject(s) - implant , medicine , dentistry , sinus lift , osteotome , maxilla , implant failure , reduction (mathematics) , surgery , geometry , mathematics
Abstract Background Implant site preparation usually consists of several consecutive drilling steps, performed using different burs with increasing diameter. Purpose The purpose of the present study was to report the clinical outcomes of edentulous patients that underwent implant treatment, in which a special bur that allows preparation of the implant site in a single drilling step was used. Material and Methods One hundred forty‐nine patients (79 males, 70 females, mean age 51.8 ± 12.2 [SD] years, range 20–80 years) have been rehabilitated using different oral surgery procedures. A total of 350 implants were inserted (171 in the maxilla and 179 in the mandible). A barrier membrane was used for covering a total of 126 implants. Fifteen implants were placed by using the osteotome technique and 52 by using the lateral sinus lift procedure. Eighty‐nine implants were placed in postextraction sockets. Thirty‐six implants underwent immediate loading. Implant survival, peri‐implant bone level change, and patients' satisfaction were the main variables assessed. Results N o patient dropout occurred. The mean follow‐up on a patient basis was 21.5 ± 3.1 months (range 12–27 months). A total of seven implant failures were recorded in six patients, leading to a mean implant survival of 98.0% (96.0% on a patient basis). The mean peri‐implant bone loss after 1 year was 0.58 ± 0.44 mm ( n = 282). Apart from implant failures, no biological nor mechanical complications occurred. All patients demonstrated full satisfaction. Conclusions The use of a single bur for implant site preparation allows the reduction of the time needed for the surgical procedure, without compromising the clinical outcomes. Further, long‐term comparative studies are needed to confirm the results of this study.