Bone Healing Following Different Types of Osteotomy: Scanning Electron Microscopy (SEM) and Three-Dimensional SEM Analyses

Blašković, Marko; Gabrić, Dragana; Coleman, Nichola J.; Slipper, Ian J.; Mladenov, Mitko; Gjorgievska, Elizabeta

doi:10.1017/s1431927616011971

Cited by 18 publications

(18 citation statements)

References 28 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Drilling with conventional steel burs generates bone fragments while piezosurgery and laser ablation, both, produce clean and smooth walls that lead to more advanced initial healing. 19 The boundaries between secondary osteons and interstitial bone, and between individual trabecular packets are formed by cement lines, which are relatively hypermineralised in comparison and therefore appear brighter. 20,21 Unremodelled islands of mineralised cartilage can also be detected, 22,23 without the need for specific staining procedures.…”

Section: Bone Imagingmentioning

confidence: 99%

50 years of scanning electron microscopy of bone—a comprehensive overview of the important discoveries made and insights gained into bone material properties in health, disease, and taphonomy

2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Bone is an architecturally complex system that constantly undergoes structural and functional optimisation through renewal and repair. The scanning electron microscope (SEM) is among the most frequently used instruments for examining bone. It offers the key advantage of very high spatial resolution coupled with a large depth of field and wide field of view. Interactions between incident electrons and atoms on the sample surface generate backscattered electrons, secondary electrons, and various other signals including X-rays that relay compositional and topographical information. Through selective removal or preservation of specific tissue components (organic, inorganic, cellular, vascular), their individual contribution(s) to the overall functional competence can be elucidated. With few restrictions on sample geometry and a variety of applicable sample-processing routes, a given sample may be conveniently adapted for multiple analytical methods. While a conventional SEM operates at high vacuum conditions that demand clean, dry, and electrically conductive samples, non-conductive materials (e.g., bone) can be imaged without significant modification from the natural state using an environmental scanning electron microscope. This review highlights important insights gained into bone microstructure and pathophysiology, bone response to implanted biomaterials, elemental analysis, SEM in paleoarchaeology, 3D imaging using focused ion beam techniques, correlative microscopy and in situ experiments. The capacity to image seamlessly across multiple length scales within the meso-micro-nano-continuum, the SEM lends itself to many unique and diverse applications, which attest to the versatility and user-friendly nature of this instrument for studying bone. Significant technological developments are anticipated for analysing bone using the SEM.

show abstract

Section: Bone Imagingmentioning

confidence: 99%

50 years of scanning electron microscopy of bone—a comprehensive overview of the important discoveries made and insights gained into bone material properties in health, disease, and taphonomy

2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Burs/drills vs lasers vs piezotomes: Only two published studies provide a direct comparison of rotary instruments against Er:YAG-laser and piezotomes of which one [87] describes a signifi cant delay in bone-healing when laser was used and a faster bone healing with piezotome-instrumentation, whereas a comparative study comparing implant drill-sites [88] fi nds no signifi cant differences between the osteotomy methods. Due to the small number of studies the Evidence Value (EV) is insignifi cant (0,3; Table 1)…”

Section: Group 3 (Experimental Studies In Vivo)mentioning

confidence: 99%

Cutting bone with drills, burs, lasers and piezotomes: A comprehensive systematic review and recommendations for the clinician

Troedhan¹,

Mahmoud²,

Wainwright³

et al. 2017

Int J Oral Craniofac Sci

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: New tools for bone-cutting were introduced to oral and maxillofacial surgery in the last decade, such as lasers and piezotomes. Purpose: to evaluate most recent evidence, when surgical procedures performed with drills or burs are compared with laser-and/or piezotome-surgical procedures in experimental and clinical studies and to assess possible advantages of their use in daily practice. Methods: a systematic search of various medical databases with specifi c keywords was performed, excluding studies published before 2006 for their possible invalidity by technological progress. Systematic reviews were assigned to Group 1, experimental studies ex vivo to Group 2, in vivo to Group 3 and clinical studies to Group 4. All studies in each of the groups 2-4 were appraised regarding their evidence, starting with a value of 0 for no evidence of advantages of lasers and/or piezotomes compared to rotary instruments, 1 for moderate evidence with verifi ed clinical impact and 2 for strong evidence and signifi cant clinical impact and statistically processed for their Evidence Value (EV) in each group and their Overall mean Evidence Value (OmEV). Results: 129 studies were fi nally included for evaluation. Two systematic reviews concluded lack of evidence for lasers to be advantageous over burs/drills. Nine reviews for piezotomes reveal strong evidence piezotome-surgery to signifi cantly reduce morbidity and to enhance soft-tissue preservation. Comparative experimental and clinical studies of burs/drills vs lasers revealed a low EV in Group 2 (EV:0,8), Group 3 (EV:0,5) and Group 4 (EV:0,5) with an OmEV of 0,6. Comparative studies burs/drills vs piezotomes resulted in a signifi cant EV in all groups (

show abstract

“…Of the most frequent procedures in oral and maxillofacial surgery belong ostectomies and osteotomies. Traditional instruments such as diamond or steel burs, oscillating saws or chisels are generally used for performing this type of procedure [ 1 , 2 ]. Even though these instruments are considered as gold standard for bone osteotomy, they have some disadvantages such as friction and pressure, during their contact with the hard tissue, resulting in fracture of fragile bone segments.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Erbium:yttrium-aluminum-garnet (Er:YAG) laser is a precise tool for bone ablation due to its wavelength of 2940 nm, that is highly absorbed by water and, to a much lower extent, by hydroxyapatite [ 2 , 10 ]. Er:YAG laser is a suitable tool for efficient bone ablation by micro-explosions, with little or no carbonization on the surrounding and/or underlying tissues [ 2 , 11 ].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Thermal Evaluation by Infrared Thermography Measurement of Osteotomies Performed with Er:YAG Laser, Piezosurgery and Surgical Drill—An Animal Study

Gabrić

Aumiler²,

Vuletić

et al. 2021

Materials

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The bone healing process following osteotomy may vary according to the type of surgical instrumentation. The aim of the present in vivo study was to determine thermal changes of the bone tissue following osteotomies performed by Er:YAG laser ablation in contact and non-contact modes, piezoelectric surgery, and surgical drill using an infrared thermographic camera. For each measurement, the temperature before the osteotomy-baseline (Tbase) and the maximal temperature measured during osteotomy (Tmax) were determined. Mean temperature (ΔT) values were calculated for each osteotomy technique. The significance of the difference of the registered temperature between groups was assessed by the ANOVA test for repeated measures. Mean baseline temperature (Tbase) was 27.9 ± 0.3 °C for contact Er:YAG laser, 29.9 ± 0.3 °C for non-contact Er:YAG laser, 29.4 ± 0.3 °C for piezosurgery, and 28.3 ± 0.3 °C for surgical drill. Mean maximum temperature (Tmax) was 29.9 ± 0.5 °C (ΔT = 1.9 ± 0.3 °C) for contact Er:YAG laser, 79.1 ± 4.6 °C (ΔT = 49.1 ± 4.4 °C) for non-contact Er:YAG laser, 29.1 ± 0.2 °C (ΔT = −0.2 ± 0.3 °C) for piezosurgery, and 27.3 ± 0.4 °C (ΔT = −0.9 ± 0.4 °C) for surgical drill. Statistically significant temperature changes were observed for the non-contact laser. The results of the study showed beneficial effects of the osteotomy performed by the Er:YAG laser used in the contact mode of working as well as for piezosurgery, reducing the potential overheating of the bone tissue as determined by means of infrared thermography.

show abstract

Bone Healing Following Different Types of Osteotomy: Scanning Electron Microscopy (SEM) and Three-Dimensional SEM Analyses

Cited by 18 publications

References 28 publications

50 years of scanning electron microscopy of bone—a comprehensive overview of the important discoveries made and insights gained into bone material properties in health, disease, and taphonomy

50 years of scanning electron microscopy of bone—a comprehensive overview of the important discoveries made and insights gained into bone material properties in health, disease, and taphonomy

Cutting bone with drills, burs, lasers and piezotomes: A comprehensive systematic review and recommendations for the clinician

Thermal Evaluation by Infrared Thermography Measurement of Osteotomies Performed with Er:YAG Laser, Piezosurgery and Surgical Drill—An Animal Study

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About