Does Mixed Conventional/Piezosurgery Implant Site Preparation Affect Implant Stability?

Association of Patient Anthropometric Measurements and Dental Implant Treatment

Background

Dental implants are currently one of the most preferred treatment modalities for replacing missing teeth, as they are the most comparable to natural teeth. Even so, satisfaction with such treatment may differ depending on patient nature. The aim of this article was to examine the relationships between different anthropometric measurements on dental implant patient's satisfaction.

Methods and Material

Self-administered questionnaire (structured questions) were given to patients who had dental implant treatment to evaluate their satisfaction level with dental-implant treatment. Different anthropometric measurements were taken: body height; weight; body mass index (BMI); body composition; waist/hip ratio; and circumferences at the waist, hip, and neck.

Results

The overall BMI was 28.9±4.7 kg/m², there was a highly-significant difference in patient satisfaction among the different BMI groups (P< 0.000). The significant difference in most of those groups was between the obese group and the other groups. For neck circumference and waist/hip ratio, a significance difference between the normal weight and obese groups (P< 0.000) was found, while for percentage of muscle, the differences were between the overweight and obese groups (P< 0.000). According to BMI groups a highly significant difference in many patient satisfaction domains were found (P< 0.000). These significant differences were between the obese group and non-obese groups for most aspects of patient satisfaction. For patient satisfaction with final appearance, the normal BMI group differed significantly from the overweight BMI group (P=0.013). Additionally, for patient satisfaction with dentist performance and communication, the overweight BMI group showed significantly higher satisfaction than the normal BMI group (P=0.019). Body measurements were correlated negatively with overall patient satisfaction, and positively with satisfaction with prosthesis.

Conclusion

The obese group patients had the lowest rate of patient satisfaction. BMI and other body measurements can be used to predict patient satisfaction with the outcome of dental implant treatment.

Changes in implant stability using different site preparation techniques: Osseodensification drills versus piezoelectric surgery. A multi-center prospective randomized controlled clinical trial

INTRODUCTION

Implant stability is influenced by bone density, implant design, and site preparation characteristics. Piezoelectric implant site preparation (PISP) has been demonstrated to improve secondary stability compared with conventional drilling techniques. Osseodensification drills (OD) have been recently introduced to enhance both bone density and implant secondary stability. The objective of the present multi-center prospective randomized controlled trial was to monitor implant stability changes over the first 90 days of healing after implant bed preparation with OD or PISP.

METHODS

Each patient received two identical, adjacent or contralateral implants in the posterior maxilla. Following randomization, test sites were prepared with OD and control sites with PISP. Resonance frequency analysis was performed immediately after implant placement and after 7, 14, 21, 28, 60, and 90 days. Implants were then restored with single screw-retained metal-ceramic crowns and followed for 12 months after loading.

RESULTS

Twenty-seven patients (15 males and 12 females; mean age 63.0 ± 11.8 years) were included in final analysis. Each patient received two identical implants in the posterior maxilla (total = 54 implants). After 1 year of loading, 53 implants were satisfactorily in function (one failure in test group 28 days after placement). Mean peak insertion torque (40.7 ± 12.3 Ncm and 39.5 ± 10.2 Ncm in test and control group, respectively) and mean implant stability quotient (ISQ) value at baseline (71.3 ± 6.9 and 69.3 ± 7.6 in test and control group, respectively) showed no significant differences between the two groups. After an initial slight stability decrease, a shift to increasing ISQ values occurred after 14 days in control group and after 21 days in test group, but with no significant differences in ISQ values between the two groups during the first 90 days of healing.

CONCLUSION

No significant differences in either primary or secondary stability or implant survival rate after 1 year of loading were demonstrated between implants inserted into sites prepared with OD and PISP.

CBCT Evaluation of Quality and Quantity of Bones for Immediate Implant Treatment Planning in Central Incisor Area in relation to Arch Form

Understanding the quality of the ridge and facial cortical bone in the aesthetic zone is important for treatment with an immediate dental implant. This study aimed to analyze bone density and widths of the facial cortical bone and alveolar ridge at the central incisors in relation to arch form. A total of 400 teeth from 100 cone-beam CT images were divided equally between the upper and lower central incisors. The central incisor area was assessed for the width of the facial cortical and alveolar bones at three different points (3 mm, 6 mm, and 9 mm from the cementoenamel junction). Arch forms and densities of cortical and cancellous bones in the interradicular regions were evaluated. The difference in facial cortical bone thickness at 3 points was smaller for the upper teeth than for the lower teeth on both sides. The alveolar bone width was higher in the maxilla than the mandible with highly significant differences (P < 0.001). The highest bone density was at the buccal aspect of the mandible (897.36 ± 136.72 HU), while the lowest density was at the cancellous bone of the maxilla (600.37 ± 126.63 HU). The dominant arch form was ovoid 71%, followed by square 20% and the tapering arch form 10%. The tapering arch form has the highest alveolar bone width in the upper jaw without statistical significance. The facial cortical bone thickness needs to be evaluated before implantation in the anterior region because it is less than two millimeters in both jaws. CBCT is important for the immediate implant. The ovoid shape was the dominant arch form.

Stability and marginal bone loss in implants placed using piezoelectric osteotomy versus conventional drilling: systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

The main objective of this systematic review was to compare primary and secondary implant stability between placement with piezoelectric osteotomy and conventional drilling, comparing marginal bone losses as a secondary objective.

Material and Methods

An electronic search was conducted using PubMed (MEDLINE), Scopus, and Cochrane Library (Wiley) databases, besides a manual search.

Results

A total of 153 articles were retrieved, 39 from Pubmed, 44 from Scopus, and 70 from the Cochrane Library. After removing duplicates, 112 articles (1 from the manual search) were screened, and 9 were finally selected for qualitative and statistical analyses.

Conclusions

Piezoelectric surgery is a predictable alternative to conventional drilling for dental implant placement. Medium/long-term survival rates and marginal bone losses are similar between piezoelectric osteotomy and conventional drilling, and there is no difference in ISQ values for primary stability. However, implants placed with ultrasound showed a lower decrease in implant stability quotient (ISQ) during the osseointegration period and a higher ISQ value for secondary stability. This study contributes further information on peri-implant bone tissue at 3 and 6 months after implant placement with piezoelectric osteotomy or conventional drilling and provides an updated meta-analysis of comparative studies.

Key words:Piezosurgery, piezoelectric surgery, conventional drill, implant site preparation, dental implant, implant stability, marginal bone loss.

The effect of osseodensification on implant stability and bone density: A prospective observational study

Background

The aims of this study were to evaluate the effect of implant site preparation in low-density bone using osseodensification method in terms of implant stability changes during the osseous healing period and peri-implant bone density using CBCT.

Material and Methods

This prospective observational clinical study included 24 patients who received 46 dental implants that were installed in low-density bone using the osseodensification method. CBCT was used to measure the bone density pre- and postoperatively and implant stability was measured using Periotest® immediately after implant insertion and then after 6 weeks and 12 weeks postoperatively. The data were analyzed using paired t-test and the probability value <0.05 was considered statistically significant.

Results

Of the 46 implants, 43 were osseointegrated making the early survival of the implants 93.5%. There was a significant increase in bone density postoperatively; 337.6 ±182.9 compared to 265.3 ±173.9 Hounsfield units preoperatively. The primary implant stability was -2.7 ± 2.13 Periotest values (PTV), at the 6th week it decreased significantly (p<0.0001) to become 0.7 (± 4) PTV, and at the 12th week (secondary stability) it increased significantly (p<0.0001) to become -2.1 (± 2.8) PTV. The difference between primary and secondary stability was statistically non-significant (p=0.0814).

Conclusions

Osseodensification resulted in high primary stability and increased peri-implant bone density but it did not prevent the implant stability drop during the first 6 weeks after insertion of implants.

Key words:Osseodensification, implant stability, low-density bone.