Dynamics of implant site preparation affecting the quality of osseointegrated implants in the maxillary aesthetic zone |
| |
| Affiliation: | 1. Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Faculty of Dental Medicine for Girls, Al Azhar University, 11727 Yusuf Abas Street, Nasr City, Cairo, Egypt;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;3. Faculty of Dental Medicine for Girls, Al Azhar University, 11727 Yusuf Abas Street, Nasr City, Cairo, Egypt;1. Maxillo-facial Surgery Department, Univeristy of Rome “La Sapienza”, Rome, Italy;2. Radiology Department, Univeristy of Rome “La Sapienza”, Rome, Italy;1. Center for Cleft Lip and Palate Treatment, Plastic Surgery Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, Ba-da-chu, Beijing 100144, China;2. Digital Simulation Center, Plastic Surgery Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, Ba-da-chu, Beijing 100144, China;3. Research Center, Plastic Surgery Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, Ba-da-chu, Beijing 100144, China;1. Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery – João de Barros Barreto University Hospital, Augusto Corrêa, 01, Guamá. CEP, 66075-110, Belém, PA, Brazil;2. Msc and PhD Student in Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery – Federal University of Pará, Augusto Corrêa, 01, Guamá. CEP, 66075-110, Belém, PA, Brazil;3. Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery – Brazilian Dental Association, Augusto Corrêa, 01, Guamá. CEP, 66075-110, Belém, PA, Brazil;4. Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery – Getúlio Vargas Hospital, Recife, Brazil;5. Msc in Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery – Federal University of Pará, Augusto Corrêa, 01, Guamá. CEP, 66075-110, Belém, PA, Brazil;6. Master Student in Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery – Federal University of Pará, Augusto Corrêa, 01, Guamá. CEP, 66075-110, Belém, PA, Brazil;7. PhD in Neurosciences and Cell Biology – Federal University of Pará, Augusto Corrêa, 01, Guamá. CEP, 66075-110, Belém, PA, Brazil;8. Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Irmandade da Santa Casa de Misericórdia Hospital, São Paulo, Brazil;1. Department of Regenerative Oral Surgery, Nagasaki University Graduate School of Biomedical Sciences, 1-7-1 Sakamoto, Nagasaki 852-8588 Japan;2. Department of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics, Nagasaki University Graduate School of Biomedical Sciences, 1-7-1 Sakamoto, Nagasaki 852-8588 Japan;1. University of Heidelberg, Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Im Neuenheimer Feld 400, D-69120, Heidelberg, Germany;2. University of Heidelberg, Institute of Medical Biometry and Informatics, Marsilius-Arkaden, Turm West, Im Neuenheimer Feld 130.3, D-69120, Heidelberg, Germany;3. University of Heidelberg, Department of Orthodontics, Im Neuenheimer Feld 400, D-69120, Heidelberg, Germany;4. University of Heidelberg, Department of Conservative Dentistry, Im Neuenheimer Feld 400, D-69120, Heidelberg, Germany |
| |
| Abstract: | PurposeThis study compared piezoelectric (PE) and conventional drills (CD) for maxillary aesthetic zone implant insertion.Material and methodsThis 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.ResultsSixty 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.ConclusionThe 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: | Piezosurgery Conventional drilling Implant stability Osseointegration Bone cutting Maxillary esthetic zone |
| 本文献已被 ScienceDirect 等数据库收录！ |
|
