| Autor: |
Costa JA; UNIPRO-Oral Pathology and Rehabilitation Research Unit, University Institute of Health Sciences (IUCS-CESPU), 4585-116 Gandra, Portugal., Mendes JM; UNIPRO-Oral Pathology and Rehabilitation Research Unit, University Institute of Health Sciences (IUCS-CESPU), 4585-116 Gandra, Portugal., Salazar F; UNIPRO-Oral Pathology and Rehabilitation Research Unit, University Institute of Health Sciences (IUCS-CESPU), 4585-116 Gandra, Portugal., Pacheco JJ; UNIPRO-Oral Pathology and Rehabilitation Research Unit, University Institute of Health Sciences (IUCS-CESPU), 4585-116 Gandra, Portugal., Rompante P; UNIPRO-Oral Pathology and Rehabilitation Research Unit, University Institute of Health Sciences (IUCS-CESPU), 4585-116 Gandra, Portugal., Moreira JF; UNIPRO-Oral Pathology and Rehabilitation Research Unit, University Institute of Health Sciences (IUCS-CESPU), 4585-116 Gandra, Portugal., Mesquita JD; Department of Radiology, School of Health of Porto/Polytechnic Institute of Porto (ESS/IP), 4200-072 Porto, Portugal., Adubeiro N; Department of Radiology, School of Health of Porto/Polytechnic Institute of Porto (ESS/IP), 4200-072 Porto, Portugal.; EPIUnit, Institute of Public Health, University of Porto, 4200-072 Porto, Portugal.; Laboratory for Integrative and Translational Research in Population Health (ITR), 4050-600 Porto, Portugal., da Câmara MI; UNIPRO-Oral Pathology and Rehabilitation Research Unit, University Institute of Health Sciences (IUCS-CESPU), 4585-116 Gandra, Portugal. |
| Abstrakt: |
Introduction : Osseodensification is a non-extraction technique using specially designed drills to increase bone density while extending an osteotomy, allowing bone to be preserved and condensed by compacting autograft during osteotomy preparation, increasing bone density around implants, and improving mechanical stability. Aim : The objective of this study is to compare conventional osteotomy and osseodensification protocols in implant placement and analyze whether there are differences in bone density. Materials and Methods: Study variables were defined, namely, osseodensification technique, conventional osteotomy technique, bone density, sex, area of location, implant dimensions, implant dimensions, and implant stability. Eligibility and exclusion criteria were defined. A step-by-step surgical protocol was developed. The surgeon and radiologist underwent intra-examiner calibration. A total of 15 patients were selected according to the eligibility criteria, and a total of 41 implants were inserted, 20 implants by conventional osteotomy and 21 by osseodensification. A cone beam computed tomography was performed one year after prosthetic rehabilitation to estimate bone density. Data were collected and recorded, and in the analysis of the association of variables, non-parametric tests were applied. Results: Significant statistical results were found in bone density values, with higher values being obtained with the osseodensification technique, that is, median density values of 1020, and median density values of 732 for the bone drilling technique. The results of the correlation between bone density in both techniques and sex, primary implant stability, implant dimensions and location area were statistically non-significant. Conclusions: Within the limitations of this study, there are differences in bone density between conventional osteotomy and osseodensification protocols. Bone density is increased with osseodensification over a study period of one year. |
