Literature DB >> 19587871

Performance of ultrasonic devices for bone surgery and associated intraosseous temperature development.

Sönke Harder1, Stefan Wolfart, Christian Mehl, Matthias Kern.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to evaluate and to compare the bone-cutting performance and intraosseous temperature development of three modern ultrasonic devices for bone surgery (UDBS).
MATERIALS AND METHODS: The following UDBS and associated cutting tips (straight bone saws) were used in this study: (1) Piezosurgery II professional, tip OT 7 (Mectron); (2) Piezotome, tip BS 1 (Acteon); and (3) SurgySonic, tip ES007 (American Dental Systems/Gunther Jerney). In the experimental setup UDBS, handpieces were immobilized, and bone specimens from the middiaphysis of a bovine femur were moved in a longitudinal direction under the cutting tip to a standardized depth of 3.0 mm. Intraosseous temperature development was measured using a glass-fiber isolated thermocouple. The cutting performance was defined by the time required to reach the cutting depth of 3.0 mm. Statistical analysis was performed using the Wilcoxon rank sum test.
RESULTS: The median increase (25th through 75th percentiles) of the local intraosseous temperature was 3.0 degrees C (2.2 degrees C to 4.2 degrees C) for the SurgySonic, 2.2 degrees C (1.8 degrees C to 3.2 degrees C) for the Piezosurgery II, and 1.1 degrees C (0.7 degrees C to 1.6 degrees C) for the Piezotome. The median cutting performance was 0.31 mm/s (0.11 to 0.46 mm/s) for the Piezotome, 0.25 mm/s (0.23 to 0.27 mm/s) for the Piezosurgery II, and 0.04 mm/s (0.03 to 0.05 mm/s) for the SurgySonic.
CONCLUSIONS: Among the three tested UDBS, the Piezotome and the Piezosurgery II showed a significantly higher cutting performance than the SurgySonic. The Piezotome produced the smallest increase in intraosseous temperature.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2009        PMID: 19587871

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants        ISSN: 0882-2786            Impact factor:   2.804


  5 in total

Review 1.  Escalating role of piezosurgery in dental therapeutics.

Authors:  Esha Agarwal; Sujata Surendra Masamatti; Ashish Kumar
Journal:  J Clin Diagn Res       Date:  2014-10-20

2.  [Methods of removing failed implants].

Authors:  Wan-Rong Wang; Xiao-Feng Chang; Long-Long He
Journal:  Hua Xi Kou Qiang Yi Xue Za Zhi       Date:  2018-04-01

3.  Comparison of heat production and bone architecture changes in the implant site preparation with compressive osteotomes, osseodensification technique, piezoelectric devices, and standard drills: an ex vivo study on porcine ribs.

Authors:  Nishith Bhargava; Vittoria Perrotti; Vito Carlo Alberto Caponio; Victor Haruo Matsubara; Diana Patalwala; Alessandro Quaranta
Journal:  Odontology       Date:  2022-07-19       Impact factor: 2.885

Review 4.  Piezoelectric Bone Surgery: A Review of the Literature and Potential Applications in Veterinary Oromaxillofacial Surgery.

Authors:  Philippe Hennet
Journal:  Front Vet Sci       Date:  2015-05-05

5.  A Present Day Approach to Crown Lengthening - Piezosurgery.

Authors:  Vamsi Lavu; Chakravarthy Arumugam; Nivedha Venkatesan; Balaji Sk; Giri Valandhan Vedha
Journal:  Cureus       Date:  2019-11-26
  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.