Effect of guide sleeve material, region, diameter, and number of times drills were used on the material loss from sleeves and drills used for surgical guides: An in vitro study

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM

How material loss from sleeves and drills is affected when different guide sleeve materials and different sizes of implant drills are used for different regions of surgical guides is unclear.

PURPOSE

The purpose of this in vitro study was to compare the amount of material loss from different guide sleeves (zirconia and cobalt-chromium) and drills of different diameters during osteotomy preparation in different regions.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Three tooth-supported surgical guides with sleeve holes positioned in the first premolar and second molar sites were prepared. Guide sleeves (Ø 2.20 mm, 3.40 mm, and 4.05 mm) were milled from zirconia (n=60) and cobalt-chromium (n=60) blocks. A total of 12 titanium nitride-coated stainless steel twisted drills (n=6 per sleeve material) of different diameters (Ø 2.00, 3.20, 3.85 mm) were used with corresponding sleeves during the drilling. The weight loss from the drills and the volume loss from the guide sleeves after drilling were analyzed by using multiple linear mixed effect models (α=.05).

RESULTS

According to the 4-way ANOVA for volume loss from sleeves, no significant interaction was found among the 4 main effects (number of times a drill was used, region, diameter, and material), but interactions between the number of times a drill was used and diameter (P=.001) and between the number of times the drill was used and material were significant (P<.001). For weight loss from the drills, a significant interaction was detected between the number of times the drill was used and diameter (P=.024).

CONCLUSIONS

Less sleeve material was lost when zirconia sleeves were used. All sleeves had more material loss in the molar region than in the premolar region. The diameter had varying effects on the amount of material loss from drills and sleeves. The sleeve material and the region did not affect the material loss from drills.

Cone Beam CT Evaluation of Maxillary Sinus Floor and Alveolar Crest Anatomy for the Safe Placement of Implants

BACKGROUND

Alveolar bone height in the posterior maxillary region is very important and critical for dental implant planning and placement.

OBJECTIVES

This study aimed to evaluate the anatomy of the maxillary sinus floor in relation to the alveolar crest and to determine variations in the vertical measurements between the maxillary sinus floor and the alveolar bone crest tip in the posterior edentulous maxilla with the use of cone beam computerized tomography.

METHODS

This analysis enrolled 234 retrospectively selected patients (123 males with mean age 52.95±11.74 (range 32-76 years) and 111 females with mean age 58.14±11.92 (range 32-75 years)) with edentulous posterior maxillary regions. The maxillary sinus floor was divided into three anatomical segments (anterior, median and posterior) in relation to the transverse palatine suture. The measurements were performed on 3D surface rendered volumetric images by using rotation and translation of the views. Landmarks for measurement were specified by using a cursor driven pointer. Vertical lines were marked on the cross-sectional images between the alveolar ridge and the deepest point of the maxillary sinus floor for each of the three regions. P < 0.05 was regarded as statistically significant.

RESULTS

The mean distance values between the sinus floor and the alveolar crest in the anterior, median and posterior regions were 8.74±3.97 mm, 5.37±3.23 mm and 7.06±3.28 mm, respectively. Measurements in the anterior region were found to be high in both total and gender groups compared to other regions. Also, subsinus alveolar bone heights decreased with increasing age in both genders in all three regions.

CONCLUSION

This study emphasizes that the mean subsinus alveolar bone height is highest in the anterior segment of the edentulous posterior maxilla. These results may guide clinicians to make the decision of implant placement area and lead to less invasive alternative surgery methods for edentulous posterior segments.