| 1. |
- Lahens, Bradley, et al.
(författare)
-
Biomechanical and histologic basis of osseodensification drilling for endosteal implant placement in low density bone. An experimental study in sheep
- 2016
-
Ingår i: Journal of The Mechanical Behavior of Biomedical Materials. - : Elsevier. - 1751-6161 .- 1878-0180. ; 63, s. 56-65
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- A bone drilling concept, namely osseodensification, has been introduced for the placement of endosteal implants to increase primary stability through densification of the osteotomy walls. This study investigated the effect of osseodensification on the initial stability and early osseointegration of conical and parallel walled endosteal implants in low density bone. Five male sheep were used. Three implants were inserted in the ilium, bilaterally, totaling 30 implants (n=15 conical, and n=15 parallel). Each animal received 3 implants of each type, inserted into bone sites prepared as follows: (i) regular-drilling (R: 2 mm pilot, 3.2 mm, and 3.8 mm twist drills), (ii) clockwise osseodensification (CW), and (iii) counterclockwise (CCW) osseodensification drilling with Densah Bur (Versah, Jackson, MI, USA): 2.0 mm pilot, 2.8 mm, and 3.8 mm multi-fluted burs. Insertion torque as a function of implant type and drilling technique, revealed higher values for osseodensification relative to R-drilling, regardless of implant macrogeometry. A significantly higher bone-to-implant contact (BIC) for both osseodensification techniques (p<0.05) was observed compared to R-drilling. There was no statistical difference in BIC as a function of implant type (p=0.58), nor in bone-area-fraction occupancy (BAFO) as a function of drilling technique (p=0.22), but there were higher levels of BAFO for parallel than conic implants (p=0.001). Six weeks after surgery, new bone formation along with remodeling sites was observed for all groups. Bone chips in proximity with the implants were seldom observed in the R-drilling group, but commonly observed in the CW, and more frequently under the CCW osseodensification technique. In low-density bone, endosteal implants present higher insertion torque levels when placed in osseodensification drilling sites, with no osseointegration impairment compared to standard subtractive drilling methods.
|
|
| 2. |
- Lahens, Bradley, et al.
(författare)
-
The effect of osseodensification drilling for endosteal implants with different surface treatments : A study in sheep.
- 2019
-
Ingår i: Journal of Biomedical Materials Research. Part B - Applied biomaterials. - : John Wiley & Sons. - 1552-4973 .- 1552-4981. ; 107:3, s. 615-623
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- This study investigated the effects of osseodensification drilling on the stability and osseointegration of machine-cut and acid-etched endosteal implants in low-density bone. Twelve sheep received six implants inserted into the ilium, bilaterally (n = 36 acid-etched, and n = 36 as-machined). Individual animals received three implants of each surface, placed via different surgical techniques: (1) subtractive regular-drilling (R): 2.0 mm pilot, 3.2 and 3.8 mm twist drills); (2) osseodensification clockwise-drilling (CW): Densah Bur (Versah, Jackson, MI) 2.0 mm pilot, 2.8, and 3.8 mm multifluted tapered burs; and (3) osseodensification counterclockwise-drilling (CCW) Densah Bur 2.0 mm pilot, 2.8 mm, and 3.8 mm multifluted tapered burs. Insertion torque was higher in the CCW and CW-drilling compared to the R-drilling (p < 0.001). Bone-to-implant contact (BIC) was significantly higher for CW (p = 0.024) and CCW-drilling (p = 0.006) compared to the R-drilling technique. For CCW-osseodensification-drilling, no statistical difference between the acid-etched and machine-cut implants at both time points was observed for BIC and BAFO (bone-area-fraction-occupancy). Resorbed bone and bone forming precursors, preosteoblasts, were observed at 3-weeks. At 12-weeks, new bone formation was observed in all groups extending to the trabecular region. In low-density bone, endosteal implants inserted via osseodensification-drilling presented higher stability and no osseointegration impairments compared to subtractive regular-drilling technique, regardless of evaluation time or implant surface. (c) 2018 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J Biomed Mater Res Part B: Appl Biomater 00B: 000-000, 2018.
|
|
