MedicGo
Dynamics of implant site preparation affecting the quality of osseointegrated implants in the maxillary aesthetic zone.
Metadata
Journaljournal of cranio-maxillofacial surgery1.766Date
2020 May 11
5 months ago
Type
Journal Article
Volume
2020-Jul / 48 : 645-652
Author
Sallam HM 1, Khalifa GA 2, Khalifa FA 3
Affiliation
  • 2. Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Collage of Dentistry, Qassim University, Postal Box 1162, Qassim Region, Al-Mulida, North of Prince Nayef bin Abdulaziz International Airport, Saudi Arabia; Faculty of Dental Medicine for Girls, Al Azhar University, 11727 Yusuf Abas Street, Nasr City, Cairo, Egypt. Electronic address: [email protected]ymail.com.
  • 3. Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Faculty of Dental Medicine for Girls, Al Azhar University, 11727 Yusuf Abas Street, Nasr City, Cairo, Egypt. Electronic address: [email protected]
Doi
PMIDMESH
Bone-Anchored Prosthesis
Dental Implantation, Endosseous
Dental Implants
Dental Prosthesis Retention
Esthetics
Humans
Osseointegration
Prospective Studies
Abstract
PURPOSE: This study compared piezoelectric (PE) and conventional drills (CD) for maxillary aesthetic zone implant insertion.
MATERIAL AND METHODS: This was a prospective split-mouth study. Implants were divided into two groups. Beds were prepared with CDs in group I and PE in group II. The implant stability quotient (ISQ) of the mechanical implant stability (MIS) was measured intraoperatively. The ISQ of the biological implant stability (BIS) was recorded at postoperative second and fourth months. Marginal bone loss (MBL) and bone density (BMD) were measured in the first and second years after prosthetic loading. The osteotomy time was also documented for both techniques. P values <0.05 were considered significant.
RESULTS: Sixty implants in 30 patients were included. PE provided a significantly higher ISQ. All values were above 70 throughout the follow-up period. The mean of the ISQ for MIS was 63.78 ± 1.03 and 73.89 ± 1.05 in group I and group II, respectively (p = 0.003). PE needed significantly longer osteotomy time with a mean of 11.99 ± 0.839 min. The BIS quality had high stability in group II and medium stability in group I throughout the study period. Its values decreased in both groups. Group II had a lesser percentage of decrease. However, it was significant only at time intervals between intraoperative and two months' postoperative (p = 0.004). MBL and BMD demonstrated insignificant results.
CONCLUSION: The implant site preparation with PE devices should be preferred to CDs whenever possible, because they seem to enhance implant stability and osseointegration, especially at the initial stages of healing.
Keywords: Bone cutting Conventional drilling Implant stability Maxillary esthetic zone Osseointegration Piezosurgery
Fav
Like
Download
Share
Export
Cite
1.8
J Craniomaxillofac Surgjournal of cranio-maxillofacial surgery
Metadata
LocationScotland
FromCHURCHILL LIVINGSTONE

No Data

© 2017 - 2020 Medicgo
Powered by some medical students