Peri-Implant Bone Damage Procured by Piezoelectric and Conventional Implant Site Preparation: An In Vitro Comparison
and Gaetano Marenzi 4,*Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The paper has been carefully reviewed and presents interesting findings. Only minor corrections are needed.
Several techniques have been described for implant site preparation. In this panorama, piezoelectric technique has been shown to be reliable, but poor data are available in the literature regarding local bone damage, as the majority of studies are concerned with rotating techniques. The submitted manuscript presents an in vitro study that includes a comparison between rotating and piezoelectric techniques for implant site preparation on bovine bone blocks. The authors have then used scanning electron microscopy to assess bone damage. The results showed that piezoelectric instrumentation preserves the bone structure to a higher extent compared to rotating instruments.
The article is well structured and well written. The results are properly discussed.
Materials and methods
- Line 71: a description of the piezoelectric inserts should be reported (diamond or smooth bladed). Alternatively, tips name could be included.
Results
- SEM micrographs magnifications should be reported in the captions.
Discussion
- Line 157: “… thermal bone damage”. At this point the authors could briefly discuss the thermal effects of piezoelectric instruments on bone (see e.g. PMID: 27110567 and 25774245). From this point of view, Literature data have shown that ultrasonic tips are safe when properly used.
Author Response
The article is well structured and well written. The results are properly discussed.
Thank You very much!
Materials and methods
- Line 71: a description of the piezoelectric inserts should be reported (diamond or smooth bladed). Alternatively, tips name could be included.
- The tip name was reported in line 72, as required
Results
- SEM micrographs magnifications should be reported in the captions.
- The captions of the fig. 1b,2b,4,5b,6b were modified, as required
Discussion
- Line 157: “… thermal bone damage”. At this point the authors could briefly discuss the thermal effects of piezoelectric instruments on bone (see e.g. PMID: 27110567 and 25774245). From this point of view, Literature data have shown that ultrasonic tips are safe when properly used.
- The thermal effects of piezoelectric instruments on bone were reported and discussed in the "Discussion", as proposed.
Reviewer 2 Report
The article: "Perimplant bone damage procured by piezoelectric and conventional implant site preparation: an in vitro comparison" investigated the cortical and cancellous bone damage procured by conventional and ultrasonic implant site preparation techniques. The methods and the topic are interesting, however, there are any flaws in the manuscript.
Line 42: There are several articles in the literature that discussed the relationship between temperature and osteointegration. Add references
Line 47-49: The authors could add new references. Moreover, in the literature, there are several articles that investigated different types of implant site preparation. Enter the following references. compare, and discuss in the section “Discussion”
Di Fiore A, Sivolella S, Stocco E, Favero V, Stellini E. Experimental Analysis of Temperature Differences During Implant Site Preparation: Continuous Drilling Technique Versus Intermittent Drilling Technique. J Oral Implantol. 2018 Feb;44(1):46-50.
Scarano A, Carinci F, Quaranta A, Di Lorio D, Assenza B, Piattelli A. Effects of bur wear during implant site preparation: an in vitro study. Int J Immunopathol Pharmacol. 2007;20:23–26.
Oliveira N, Alaejos-Algarra F, Mareque-Bueno J, Ferre´s-Padro´ E, Herna´ndez-Alfaro F. Thermal changes and drill wear in bovine bone during implant site preparation. A comparative in vitro study: twisted stainless steel and ceramic drills. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2012;23:963–969.
Chacon GE, Bower DL, Larsen PE, McGlumphy EA, Beck FM. Heat production by 3 implant drill systems after repeated drilling and sterilization. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2006;64:265–269.
Line 59: Is the experiment developed in the room with the same temperature?
Line 66-68: Enter the manufacturer of the drills.
Discussion section:
The author could write more sentences about the methodology used in the research. Why did not use a thermal probe to evaluate the temperature generate? Why did not use a chronometer to record the different time of implant site preparation? Why did not assess implant stability? These arguments represent a flaw in the methodology of the research. Comment, discuss, and add all the flaws of the research methodology and the drawbacks of the SEM.
Conclusion:
The authors could change the conclusion entering that the assessment was made only with the SEM methodology without a numerical comparison obtained, for example, with record the temperature.
Author Response
Line 42: There are several articles in the literature that discussed the relationship between temperature and osteointegration. Add references
The references were added, as proposed.
Line 47-49: The authors could add new references. Moreover, in the literature, there are several articles that investigated different types of implant site preparation. Enter the following references. compare, and discuss in the section “Discussion”
The suggested references were added.
Di Fiore A, Sivolella S, Stocco E, Favero V, Stellini E. Experimental Analysis of Temperature Differences During Implant Site Preparation: Continuous Drilling Technique Versus Intermittent Drilling Technique. J Oral Implantol. 2018 Feb;44(1):46-50.
Scarano A, Carinci F, Quaranta A, Di Lorio D, Assenza B, Piattelli A. Effects of bur wear during implant site preparation: an in vitro study. Int J Immunopathol Pharmacol. 2007;20:23–26.
Oliveira N, Alaejos-Algarra F, Mareque-Bueno J, Ferre´s-Padro´ E, Herna´ndez-Alfaro F. Thermal changes and drill wear in bovine bone during implant site preparation. A comparative in vitro study: twisted stainless steel and ceramic drills. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2012;23:963–969.
Chacon GE, Bower DL, Larsen PE, McGlumphy EA, Beck FM. Heat production by 3 implant drill systems after repeated drilling and sterilization. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2006;64:265–269.
Line 59: Is the experiment developed in the room with the same temperature?
This particular was reported at line 61, as required.
Line 66-68: Enter the manufacturer of the drills.
Discussion section:
The author could write more sentences about the methodology used in the research. Why did not use a thermal probe to evaluate the temperature generate? Why did not use a chronometer to record the different time of implant site preparation? Why did not assess implant stability? These arguments represent a flaw in the methodology of the research. Comment, discuss, and add all the flaws of the research methodology and the drawbacks of the SEM.
The "Discussion" was modified as required.
The proposed arguments were discussed evidencing that the comparison between the two different implant site techniques was performed considering the only SEM analysis of the peri-implant bone damage.
Conclusion:
The authors could change the conclusion entering that the assessment was made only with the SEM methodology without a numerical comparison obtained, for example, with record the temperature.
The conclusion was modified as required.
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
The article entitled "Perimplant bone damage procured by piezoelectric and conventional implant site preparation: an in vitro comparison." can be accepted in the present form. All the suggestions are been followed by the authors.
