Resonance frequency analysis of implants placed in condensed bone

Evaluation of bone integrity around the acetabular cup using noninvasive laser resonance frequency analysis

Resonance frequency analysis (RFA) is valuable for assessing implant status. In a previous investigation, acetabular cup fixation was assessed using laser RFA and the pull-down force was predicted in an in vitro setting. While the pull-down force alone is sufficient for initial fixation evaluation, it is desirable to evaluate the bone strength of the foundation for subsequent fixation. Diminished bone quality causes micromotion, migration, and protracted osseointegration, consequently elevating susceptibility to periprosthetic fractures and failure of ingrained trabecular bone. Limited research exists on the evaluation of bone mineral density (BMD) around the cup using RFA. For in vivo application of laser RFA, we implemented the sweep pulse excitation method and engineered an innovative laser RFA device having low laser energy and small dimensions. We focused on a specific frequency range (2500-4500 Hz), where the peak frequency was presumed to be influenced by foundational density. Quantitative computed tomography with a phantom was employed to assess periprosthetic BMD. Correlation between the resonance frequency within the designated range and the density around the cup was evaluated both in the laboratory and in vivo using the novel laser RFA device. The Kruskal-Wallis test showed robust correlations in both experiments (laboratory study: R = 0.728, p < 0.001; in vivo study: R = 0.619, p < 0.001). Our laser RFA system can assess the quality of bone surrounding the cup. Laser RFA holds promise in predicting the risk of loosening and might aid in the decision-making process for additional fixation through screw insertion.

Effect of Implant Macro-Design and Magnetodynamic Surgical Preparation on Primary Implant Stability: An In Vitro Investigation

BACKGROUND

Macro-geometry and surgical implant site preparation are two of the main factors influencing implant stability and potentially determining loading protocol. The purpose of this study was to assess the initial stability of various implant macro-designs using both magnetodynamic and traditional osteotomy techniques in low-density bone. The parameters examined included peak insertion torque (PIT), implant stability quotient (ISQ), and peak removal torque (PRT).

METHODS

Four groups of 34 implants each were identified in accordance with the surgery and implant shape: T5 group (Five implant and osteotomy using drills); M5 group (Five implant and magnetodynamic osteotomy using Magnetic Mallet); TT group (TiSmart implant and osteotomy with drills); and MT group (TiSmart implant and magnetodynamic osteotomy). Every implant was placed into a low-density bone animal model and scanned using CBCT. The PIT and PRT were digitally measured in Newton-centimeters (Ncm) using a torque gauge device. The ISQ was analyzed by conducting resonance frequency analysis.

RESULTS

The PIT values were 25.04 ± 4.4 Ncm for T5, 30.62 ± 3.81 Ncm for M5, 30 ± 3.74 Ncm for TT, and 32.05 ± 3.55 Ncm for MT. The average ISQ values were 68.11 ± 3.86 for T5, 71.41 ± 3.69 for M5, 70.88 ± 3.08 for TT, and 73 ± 3.5 for MT. The PRT values were 16.47 ± 4.56 Ncm for T5, 26.02 ± 4.03 Ncm for M5, 23.91 ± 3.28 Ncm for TT, and 26.93 ± 3.96 Ncm for MT. Based on our data analysis using a t-test with α = 0.05, significant differences in PIT were observed between TT and T5 (p < 0.0001), M5 and T5 (p < 0.0001), and MT and TT (p = 0.02). Significant differences in the ISQ were found between TT and T5 (p = 0.001), M5 and T5 (p < 0.001), and MT and TT (p = 0.01). The PRT also exhibited significant differences between TT and T5, M5 and T5, and MT and TT (p < 0.0001).

CONCLUSION

Our data showed favorable primary implant stability (PS) values for both implant macro-geometries. Furthermore, the magnetodynamic preparation technique appears to be more effective in achieving higher PS values in low-density bone.

Associations between cortical bone-to-implant contact and microstructure derived from CBCT and implant primary stability

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the associations between the cortical bone-to-implant contact (CBIC), bone microstructure derived from cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT), and the primary stability of the implant.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Twenty-two patients with 65 implants were enrolled in this study. The peak insertion torque values (ITVs) were measured during implant insertion, and the implant stability quotient (ISQ) values were measured immediately after implant placement and 3 months after surgery. The profiles of the peri-implant bone structure were outlined using the volumetric reconstruction of the CBCTs and superimposition of the virtual models, and the features of CBIC and bone microstructure parameters were measured. The linear mixed effects model and generalized estimating equation were used to explore the predictors for implant primary stability.

RESULTS

The average ITV, baseline, and secondary ISQ values were 31.44 ± 6.54 N·cm, 73.34 ± 7.39, and 80.32 ± 4.58, respectively. Statistically significant correlations were found between ITV and surface area of CBIC (r = .340, p = .006), bone volume fraction (r = .294, p = .017), and bone surface fraction (r = -.278, p = .039). Implants with buccolingual CBIC had a higher ITV than implants without CBIC (p = .016). None of the parameters were associated with baseline and secondary ISQ values in generalized estimating equation analysis (all p > .05).

CONCLUSIONS

Within the limitations of the study, preoperative CBCT measurements might enable the prediction of ITV and therefore of implant primary stability values.

Comparison between Magneto-Dynamic, Piezoelectric, and Conventional Surgery for Dental Extractions: A Pilot Study

This pilot split-mouth study aimed to evaluate and compare early postoperative discomfort and wound healing outcomes in post-extraction sockets after dental extraction performed with a Magnetic Mallet (MM), piezosurgery, and conventional instruments (EudraCT 2022-003135-25). Twenty-two patients requiring the extraction of three non-adjacent teeth were included. Each tooth was randomly assigned to a specific treatment (control, MM, or piezosurgery). Outcome measures were the severity of symptoms after surgery, wound healing assessed at the 10-days follow-up visit, and the time taken to complete each procedure (excluding suturing). Two-way ANOVA and Tukey’s multiple comparisons tests were performed to evaluate eventual differences between groups. There were no statistically significant differences between the compared methods in postoperative pain and healing, and no additional complications were reported. MM required significantly less time to perform a tooth extraction, followed by conventional instruments and piezosurgery, in increasing order (p < 0.05). Overall, the present findings suggest the use of MM and piezosurgery as valid options for dental extractions. Further randomized controlled studies are needed to confirm and extend this study’s results, facilitating the selection of the optimal method for an individual patient depending on the patient’s needs and preferences.

Usefulness of Magnetic Mallet in Oral Surgery and Implantology: A Systematic Review

This systematic review aimed to answer the question: “Is the use of magnetic mallet effective in oral and implant surgery procedures in terms of tissue healing, surgery outcome, and complication rate compared to traditional instruments?” A literature search of PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science databases (articles published until 1 October 2021) was conducted, in accordance with the PRISMA statement, using the keywords “magnetic mallet”, “electric mallet”, “oral surgery”, “implantology”, and “dental implant”. Of 252 articles, 14 were included in the review (3 for teeth extraction, and 11 for implant dentistry). Out of a total of 619 dental extractions (256 patients) performed with the magnetic mallet (MM), no complications were reported. Implants inserted totaled 880 (525 patients): 640 in the MM groups (382), and 240 in control groups (133). The survival rate of implants was 98.9% in the MM groups, and 95.42% in the control groups. Seven patients experienced benign paroxysmal positional vertigo after implant surgery, all in control groups. Results are not sufficient to establish the effectiveness of MM in oral and implant surgery procedures. Randomized controlled trials with a large sample size are needed.