Delayed Expansion of the Atrophic Mandible by Ultrasonic Surgery: A Clinical and Histologic Case Series

Background: The aim of the present study was to compare, in low-density polyurethane blocks, the primary implant stability values (micromobility) and removal torque values of three different implant geometries in two different bone densities representing the structure of the human posterior jaws. Methods: A total of 60 implants were used in the present investigation: twenty implants for each of three groups (group A, group B, and group C), in both polyurethane 10 pcf and 20 pcf densities. The insertion torque, pull-out torque, and implant stability quotient (ISQ) values were obtained. Results: No differences were found in the values of Group A and Group B implants. In both these groups, the insertion torques were quite low in the 10 pcf blocks. Better results were found in the 20 pcf blocks, which showed very good stability of the implants. The pull-out values were slightly lower than the insertion torque values. High ISQ values were found in Group A and B implants. Lower values were present in Group C implants. Conclusions: The present investigation evaluated implants with different geometries that are available on the market, and not experimental implants specifically created for the study. The authors aimed to simulate real clinical conditions (poor-density bone or immediate post-extraction implants) in which knowledge of dental implant features, which may be useful in increasing the primary stability, may help the oral surgeon during the surgery planning.

show abstract

“…The use of conical shaped implants could represent an advantage in cases of reduced diameter alveolar ridges [42][43][44][45].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Primary Stability of Dental Implants in Low-Density (10 and 20 pcf) Polyurethane Foam Blocks: Conical vs Cylindrical Implants

Comuzzi

Tumedei

Pontes

et al. 2020

IJERPH

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Moreover, the osseodensification technique is able to provide a less traumatic surgery, a reduction of surgery times and pain, a positive effect on maturation of the bone tissue and implant healing if compared to different alternative surgery expansion techniques such as split osteotomy [30,33].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Osseodensification Drilling vs. Standard Protocol of Implant Site Preparation: An In Vitro Study on Polyurethane Foam Sheets

et al. 2020

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

(1) Background: The aim of the present in vitro investigation was to evaluate, on polyurethane sheets, two different drilling techniques for dental implant positioning using osteocondensing burs compared to a standard type protocol. (2) Methods: Three different implant designs (Implacil De Bortoli UN III 4 × 10 mm, Restore RBM 4 (HEX) × 10 mm; Implacil De Bortoli UN II 4 × 10 mm) were evaluated (test implant (osteocondensing drills) and control implant (standard drills)). The insertion torque (IT), the removal torque (RT) and the resonance frequency analysis (RFA) values of test and control implants inserted in different size and different density polyurethane foam models were compared for 120 experimental sites. Accordingly, 120 experimental holes were produced in different PCF polyurethane foams: 60 sites were produced in 10 PCF sheets and 60 sites in 10 PCF sheets with an additional 1 mm layer of 30 PCF. (3) Results: The IT, removal torque and RFA values were significantly higher for both of the evaluated implants, in the sites prepared with the osteocondenser drills when compared to sites prepared with standard drills (p < 0.05). The UNII and UN III showed significantly higher stability compared to the HEX implant; these differences increased drastically in the 10 PCF Polyurethane Block with the additional 1 mm cortical layer (p < 0.05). (4) Conclusions: The outcome of this investigation suggested a possible clinical application of osteocondensing burs in case of reduced bone quality and quantity in the posterior maxilla.

show abstract

“…Numerous techniques, such as guided bone regeneration (GBR), block bone grafts, distraction osteogenesis, and transposition of the inferior alveolar nerve, have been used to increase available ridge dimensions where significant horizontal and vertical bone loss has occurred [6,7]. Although bone augmentation techniques are proven to be predictable and successful [8], patients may not accept such treatments fearing donor site morbidity, invasive operation, additional cost, and longer treatment time [9,10]. Short implants with length shorter than 10mm, can be considered an effective alternative treatment option in reduced bone height to avoid invasive bone augmentation procedures.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

One-Year Results of a Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial of Immediately Loaded Short Implants Placed in the Lower Posterior Single Molar Using a Complete Digital Workflow

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The purpose of this randomized clinical trial is to evaluate immediately loaded single implants with varying lengths in the posterior mandible using a fully digital, model-free prosthetic-driven implant planning pathway, and to compare clinical and radiological outcomes of short and long implants. The 52 patients with the single tooth missing in the posterior molar regions of the mandible were randomly assigned to the control (CMI IS-III active® long implant; 5.0 × 10 mm) and experimental (CMI IS-III active® short implant; 5.5 × 6.6, 7.3, 8.5 mm) groups. For each patient, a single implant was placed using the computer aided surgical template and all prostheses were fabricated by means of computer-aided design/computer-aided manufacturing (CAD/CAM) system on the virtual model. The patients received provisional and definitive monolithic zirconia prostheses at 1 week and 12 weeks after implant surgery, respectively. The implant stability quotient (ISQ) measurements and periapical radiographs were taken and peri-implant parameters were evaluated at 1, 3, 4, 8, 12, 24, 36, and 48 weeks after surgery. Nineteen long implants and 27 short implants were finally used for the statistical analysis. There was no significant difference between the groups in terms of insertion torque, ISQ values (except 3 weeks), marginal bone loss, and peri-implant soft tissue parameters (p > 0.05). Both groups exhibited no stability dip during the early phase of healing. The average marginal bone loss from the baseline of implant placement for the control and experimental groups was −0.07 and 0.03 mm after 12 weeks and 0.06 and 0.05 mm after 48 weeks. All of the soft tissue parameters were within normal limits. Within the limits of the short term follow up, immediate loading of short single implants can be considered as one of predictable treatment modality in mandible with reduced bone height when primary stability can be achieved.

show abstract

Delayed Expansion of the Atrophic Mandible by Ultrasonic Surgery: A Clinical and Histologic Case Series

Cited by 23 publications

References 0 publications

Primary Stability of Dental Implants in Low-Density (10 and 20 pcf) Polyurethane Foam Blocks: Conical vs Cylindrical Implants

Primary Stability of Dental Implants in Low-Density (10 and 20 pcf) Polyurethane Foam Blocks: Conical vs Cylindrical Implants

Osseodensification Drilling vs. Standard Protocol of Implant Site Preparation: An In Vitro Study on Polyurethane Foam Sheets

One-Year Results of a Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial of Immediately Loaded Short Implants Placed in the Lower Posterior Single Molar Using a Complete Digital Workflow

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About