Next Article in Journal
Alloying and Processing Effects on the Microstructure, Mechanical Properties, and Degradation Behavior of Extruded Magnesium Alloys Containing Calcium, Cerium, or Silver
Next Article in Special Issue
Correlation between Buccal Bone Thickness at Implant Placement in Healed Sites and Buccal Soft Tissue Maturation Pattern: A Prospective Three-Year Study
Previous Article in Journal
Study on the Mechanical Properties of Bionic Protection and Self-Recovery Structures
Previous Article in Special Issue
Influence of Aging on Biaxial Flexural Strength and Hardness of Translucent 3Y-TZP
Open AccessArticle

Under-Drilling versus Hybrid Osseodensification Technique: Differences in Implant Primary Stability and Bone Density of the Implant Bed Walls

1
Department of Prosthodontics and Digital Technology School of Dental Medicine, Stony Brook University, Stony Brook, NY 11794-8712, USA
2
Department of Periodontology, School of Dental Medicine, Stony Brook University, Stony Brook, NY 11794-8712, USA
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Materials 2020, 13(2), 390; https://doi.org/10.3390/ma13020390
Received: 7 December 2019 / Revised: 8 January 2020 / Accepted: 13 January 2020 / Published: 15 January 2020
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Dental Implants and Materials)
The goal of this study was to evaluate the effects of two implant bed preparation techniques on the implant primary stability (IPS) and the bone density of the implant site. We completed 40 implant bed osteotomies in pig ribs using two techniques: osseodensification (OD) plus under-drilling (UD) with universal osseodensification drills (Test A), and under-drilling alone with drills of the same implant system (Test B). Implants with a 4.1 mm diameter and 10 mm length were inserted, and the IPS was evaluated with three methods: (insertion torque (IT), periotest (PTV), and resonance frequency analysis (RFA). The bone density was evaluated using micro-computed tomography. ANOVA and Tukey’s post-hoc test were used for comparison of the IPS values, and Kruskal–Wallis was used to evaluate the bone density. Statistical significance was set at p < 0.05. The tested B technique (UD) achieved a higher IPS compared to the Test A technique (OD + UD) for all the evaluation methods (p < 0.05). Bone density was higher at the apical and middle region in Test A compared to Test B and control sites (p < 0.05). We concluded that although the bone density increased with the hybrid OD technique with universal drills, implant beds prepared with UD using drills with geometry similar to that of the implant are more efficient at increasing IPS values. View Full-Text
Keywords: osseodensification; under-drilling; primary stability; bone density osseodensification; under-drilling; primary stability; bone density
Show Figures

Figure 1

MDPI and ACS Style

Delgado-Ruiz, R.; Gold, J.; Somohano Marquez, T.; Romanos, G. Under-Drilling versus Hybrid Osseodensification Technique: Differences in Implant Primary Stability and Bone Density of the Implant Bed Walls. Materials 2020, 13, 390.

Show more citation formats Show less citations formats
Note that from the first issue of 2016, MDPI journals use article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Access Map by Country/Region

1
Back to TopTop