| Popis: |
The approach employed for the site preparation of the dental implant is a variable factor that affects the implant’s primary stability and its ability to integrate with the surrounding bone. The main objective of this in vitro study is to evaluate the influence of different techniques used to prepare the implant site on the primary stability of the implant in two different densities of artificial bone. Materials and Methods: A total of 150 implant sites were prepared in rigid polyurethane blocks to simulate two distinct bone densities of 15 pounds per cubic foot (PCF) and 30 PCF, with a 1-mm-thick simulated cortex. The implant sites were equally distributed among piezoelectric surgery (PES), traditional drills (TD), and black ruby magnetic mallet inserts (MM). Two methods have been employed to evaluate the implant’s primary stability, Osstell and micro-tomography. Results: In the present study, we observed significant variations in the implant stability quotient (ISQ) values. More precisely, our findings indicate that the ISQ values were generally higher for 30 PCF compared to 15 PCF. In terms of the preparation technique, PES exhibited the greatest ISQ values, followed by MM, and finally TD. These findings corresponded for both bone densities of 30 PCF (PES 75.6 ± 1.73, MM 69.8 ± 1.91, and TD 65.8 ± 1.91) and 15 PCF (PES 72.3 ± 1.63, MM 62.4 ± 1.77, and TD 60.6 ± 1.81). By utilizing Micro-CT scans, we were able to determine the ratio of the implant occupation to the preparation site. Furthermore, we could calculate the maximum distance between the implant and the wall of the preparation site. The findings demonstrated that PES had a higher ratio of implant to preparation site occupation, followed by TD, and then the MM, at a bone density of 30 PCF (PES 96 ± 1.95, TD 94 ± 1.88, and MM 90.3 ± 2.11). Nevertheless, there were no statistically significant differences in the occupation ratio among these three approaches in the bone density of 15 PCF (PES 89.6 ± 1.22, TD 90 ± 1.31, and MM 88.4 ± 1.17). Regarding the maximum gap between the implant and the site preparation, the smallest gaps were seen when TD were used, followed by MM, and finally by PES, either in a bone density 15 PCF (PES 318 ± 21, TD 238 ± 17, and MM 301 ± 20 μm) or in a bone density 30 PCF (PES 299 ± 20, TD 221 ± 16, and MM 281 ± 19 μm). A statistical analysis using ANOVA revealed these differences to be significant, with p-values of < 0.05. Conclusion: The outcomes of this study indicate that employing the PES technique and osteo-densification with MM during implant insertion may enhance the primary stability and increase the possibility of early implant loading. |
