Effect of 50 to 60°C Heating on Osseointegration of Dental Implants in Dense Bone

Trisi, Paolo; Berardini, Marco; Falco, Alessandra; Vulpiani, Michele Podaliri; Masciotra, Loredana

doi:10.1097/id.0000000000000162

Cited by 26 publications

(27 citation statements)

References 17 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…13 This study showed no statistical differences in %BIC between the groups, and only in the 60°C group 1 was reported to induce a significant periimplant crestal bone resorption. 16-20 Eriksson and Albrektsson 11 established the temperature threshold level of bone injury at 47°C or 50°C for 1 minute.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 51%

“…Their study was performed using a dividable titanium structure with a 1-mm-wide transverse canal in which the authors could evaluate the thorough bone growth. In a subsequent study, Trisi et al 13 reported that cortical bone heating before implant insertion (sheep mandible) up to 60°C for 1 minute did not impair the osseointegration, but it was enough to create periimplant infrabony pockets statistically deeper than the control group. The titanium structure was inserted in rabbit tibia that is mainly composed of cortical bone, and it is not clarified if the cancellous bone could have the same clinical behavior.…”

Section: And Then Eriksson Andmentioning

confidence: 97%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Effect of Temperature on the Dental Implant Osseointegration Development in Low-Density Bone

Trisi¹,

Berardini²,

Falco³

et al. 2015

Implant Dentistry

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 51%

Section: And Then Eriksson Andmentioning

confidence: 97%

Effect of Temperature on the Dental Implant Osseointegration Development in Low-Density Bone

Trisi¹,

Berardini²,

Falco³

et al. 2015

Implant Dentistry

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Different factors affect the heat generated during drilling at the implant site, including the operator (pressure, status, movement, speed and duration of drilling), manufacturer (design and sharpness of the drill, irrigation system and implant system), site (cortical thickness, condition of the site and depth drilled) and patient (age and bone density) ( 22 ). In an animal study, Trisi et al ( 23 ) analyzed histomorphometric parameters in implants that had been placed with different irrigation systems (without irrigation, with internal irrigation, with external irrigation, and a combination of both). The results of the study suggest that due to insufficient irrigation, hard bone caused massive resorption of the cortical bone and implant failure.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparison of peri-implant bone loss between conventional drilling with irrigation versus low-speed drilling without irrigation

Pellicer-Chover¹,

Peñarrocha‐Oltra²,

Aloy-Prósper³

et al. 2017

Med Oral

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundTo compare the technique of high speed drilling with irrigation and low speed drilling without irrigation in order to evaluate the success rate and peri-implant bone loss at 12 months of follow-up.Material and MethodsA randomized, controlled, parallel-group clinical trial was carried out in patients requiring dental implants to rehabilitate their unitary edentulism. Patients were recruited from the Oral Surgery Unit of the University of Valencia (Spain) between September 2014 and August 2015. Patients who met the inclusion criteria were randomized to two groups: group A (high-speed drilling with irrigation) and group B (low-speed drilling without irrigation). The success rate and peri-implant bone loss were recorded at 12 months of follow-up.ResultsTwenty-five patients (9 men and 16 women) with 30 implants were enrolled in the study: 15 implants in group A and 15 implants in group B. The mean bone loss of the implants in group A and group B was 0.83 ± 0.73 mm and 0.62 ± 0.70 mm, respectively (p > 0.05). In the maxilla, the bone loss was 1.04 ± 0.63 mm in group A and 0.71 ± 0.36 mm in group B (p > 0.05), while bone loss in the mandible was 0.59 ± 0.80 mm in group A and 0.69 ± 0.77 mm in group B (p > 0.05). The implant success rate at 12 months was 93.3% in group A and 100% in group B.ConclusionsWithin the limitations of the study, the low-speed drilling technique presented peri-implant bone loss outcomes similar to those of the conventional drilling technique at 12 months of follow-up. Key words:Low-speed without irrigation, drilling technique.

show abstract

“…Heat may be caused by surgical procedures with insufficient cooling, such as implant drilling and bone cutting, or electrical, water, and laser devices [15,16]. Authors treated the cancellous and cortical bone with several devices, such as heated fluids, electric thermal probes, laser devices, and heated implants in order to gain knowledge of bone behavior and remodeling on thermal irritations [1,[17][18][19]. Heat generation during bone drilling, especially in implantology, is a well-investigated field [20].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Temperature Threshold Values of Bone Necrosis for Thermo-Explantation of Dental Implants—A Systematic Review on Preclinical In Vivo Research

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose: Very high or low temperatures will lead to bone damage. The objective of this review was to analyze threshold values for thermal bone necrosis. Methods: Histological animal studies evaluating thermal effects on bone necrosis were selected via electronic and hand searches in English and German language journals until 1 November 2019. The outcome measures were temperature-exposure intervals and laser settings effecting bone damage. Furthermore, investigated parameters were the bone-to-implant contact ratios (BIC) and infrabony pockets around dental implants after thermal treatment. For quality assessment of studies, the CAMARADES study quality checklist was applied. Results: A total of 455 animals in 25 animal studies were included for data extraction after screening of 45 titles from 957 selected titles of the MEDLINE (PubMed), The Cochrane Library, Embase and Web of Science search. The threshold values for bone necrosis ranged between 47 °C and 55 °C for 1 min. A threshold value for cryoinsult and laser treatment has not yet been defined. However, temperatures in the vicinity of 3.5 °C produce a histologically proven effect on the bone and in the surrounding tissue. At 50 °C for 1 min, BIC values significantly decreased and infrabony pockets increased. Bone quality had an influence on the outcome, as cancellous bone suffered higher bone damage from thermal treatment compared to cortical bone. Conclusion: No clear threshold value for bone necrosis is available according to the current literature for warm and cold stimuli. More in-depth and clinical studies are required to provide further insights in assessing the potential of thermal necrosis for implant removal.

show abstract

Effect of 50 to 60°C Heating on Osseointegration of Dental Implants in Dense Bone

Cited by 26 publications

References 17 publications

Effect of Temperature on the Dental Implant Osseointegration Development in Low-Density Bone

Effect of Temperature on the Dental Implant Osseointegration Development in Low-Density Bone

Comparison of peri-implant bone loss between conventional drilling with irrigation versus low-speed drilling without irrigation

Temperature Threshold Values of Bone Necrosis for Thermo-Explantation of Dental Implants—A Systematic Review on Preclinical In Vivo Research

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About