Thermal exposure of implant osteotomies and its impact on osseointegration-A preclinical in vivo study

OBJECTIVES

Thermal and mechanical stresses during osteotomy preparation can impair implant osseointegration. This study investigated implant osseointegration following the measurement of temperature exposure during osteotomy drilling, varying drill design, sequence, and drill wear.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

36 tapered implants were placed in a mandibular minipig model after guided drilling of implant osteotomies using 4 different groups: (1) control drills with a conservative, sequential drilling sequence, (2) control drills using a shortened drill sequence (PF), (3) novel test drill displaying an optimized drill design and surface treatment, PF, and (4) aged test drill, PF. Intraosseous temperatures during drilling were measured using a temperature probe. BIC, fBIC, and tissue reactions were histomorphometrically derived after 2 and 8 weeks of healing.

RESULTS

Compared to control drills (1) or (2), test drills (3) resulted in significantly lower maximum temperatures ((35.4 (CI 30.2-40.5)°C vs. (46.5 (CI 41.0-52.0)°C, p = .0021)) and shorter drill times ((4.5 (CI 1.6-7.3)sec vs. 10.3 (7.3-13.4)sec). Lower osteotomy temperature values and shorter drill times corroborated with significantly higher BIC after 2 and 8 weeks healing for the test (3) compared to control groups (2) (2 weeks: (44.9 (CI 34.1-55. 7)% vs. (31.3 (CI 20.5-42.2)%, p = <.0001 and 8 weeks: (73.7 ( CI 64.2-83.2)% vs. (66.2 (CI 57.0-75.4)%, p = <.0455).

CONCLUSION

The improved osseointegration of implants placed after osteotomy preparation with novel test drills using a shortened drill sequence compared to standard drills and conventional drill protocols might be attributed to more favorable thermal profiles and less mechanical stress exerted on the bone surrounding the implant osteotomy.

Temperature Values Variability in Piezoelectric Implant Site Preparation: Differences between Cortical and Corticocancellous Bovine Bone

Purpose. Various parameters can influence temperature rise and detection during implant site preparation. The aim of this study is to investigate local temperature values in cortical and corticocancellous bovine bone during early stages of piezoelectric implant site preparation. Materials and Methods. 20 osteotomies were performed using a diamond tip (IM1s, Mectron Medical Technology, Carasco, Italy) on two different types of bovine bone samples, cortical and corticocancellous, respectively. A standardized protocol was designed to provide constant working conditions. Temperatures were measured in real time at a fixed position by a fiber optic thermometer. Results. Significantly higher drilling time (154.90 sec versus 99.00 sec; p < 0.0001) and temperatures (39.26°C versus 34.73°C; p = 0.043) were observed in the cortical group compared to the corticocancellous group. A remarkable variability of results characterized the corticocancellous blocks as compared to the blocks of pure cortical bone. Conclusion. Bone samples can influence heat generation during in vitro implant site preparation. When compared to cortical bone, corticocancellous samples present more variability in temperature values. Even controlling most experimental factors, the impact of bone samples still remains one of the main causes of temperature variability.

Real-time thermographic analysis of low-density bone during implant placement: a randomized parallel-group clinical study comparing lateral condensation with bone drilling surgical technique

OBJECTIVES

To compare the effect of two surgical techniques, lateral condensation and bone drilling, on changes in temperature of the adjacent low-density bone during implant placement into posterior maxilla and to investigate the influence of the host factors - age, gender, region of implantation, bone density, and thickness of the cortical bone at the recipient sites.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Local bone temperature was measured thermographically during implant placement into posterior maxilla following lateral bone condensing (test group) or bone drilling (controls). The main study outcomes were baseline bone temperature prior to implantation and maximum bone temperature recorded during implantation. Early implant success was evaluated after 6 months of healing.

RESULTS

A total of 40 implants were randomly allocated to test and control groups and placed into maxillary premolar and/or molar region of 18 participants of both genders and average age of 51.74 years. All recorded bone temperatures were below the threshold for thermal necrosis. Although both groups showed significant increase in bone temperature during implant placement procedure (P ≤ 0.0005), it was significantly higher for bone condensing compared with drilling (P ≤ 0.0005; 3.79 ± 1.54°C; 1.91 ± 0.70°C respectively). No host factor was singled out as a significant predictor of bone temperature changes, although trend of higher increase was observed in young patients, regardless of gender, during implant placement procedure into maxillary first premolar region with bone density type 3 and cortical layer thicker than 1 mm. Early implant success rate after 6 months follow-up was 100%.

CONCLUSION

Although both surgical techniques, bone condensing and bone drilling, can be considered safe regarding their thermal effect on the bone of posterior maxilla, bone drilling is associated with fewer local bone heating during implantation. Host factors do not affect the bone thermal changes significantly.