OBJECTIVES: This study aims to determine differences in primary stability between implants placed in cortical bone following Piezoelectric or conventional site preparation, as assessed by resonance frequency analysis (RFA) and reverse torque testing (RTT). MATERIAL AND METHODS: Four fresh bovine ribs were acquired and surgical guides fabricated with five sites per rib (n = 20), for proper site preparation. Implant sites were prepared via conventional drilling technique as per manufacturer's instruction (Implantium) or via Piezoelectric (Mectron) implant site preparation using the Implant Prep kit. Twenty 10 mm long, 3.6 mm diameter Implantium implants were placed with 35 Ncm torque; 10 implants per preparation method. RFA was assessed via the Osstell Mentor. Five values were taken per implant. All implants where subjected to a reverse torque in increasing increments of 5 until 50 Ncm force was reached. RESULTS: The five RFA values per site were averaged and plotted by placement technique. A paired t-test statistical analysis was run. The average RFA values showed no statistical significance between the 10 test (RFA = 69.04 ± 5.11) and 10 control (RFA = 70.94 ± 6.41) sites (P > 0.05). All implants in both groups withstood RTT up to 50 Ncm force without movement and thus showed no statistical differences. CONCLUSION: Results of this ex vivo study imply that the Piezoelectric implant site preparation affords similar primary implant stability in comparison to conventional rotary instrumentation in cortical bone.
OBJECTIVES: This study aims to determine differences in primary stability between implants placed in cortical bone following Piezoelectric or conventional site preparation, as assessed by resonance frequency analysis (RFA) and reverse torque testing (RTT). MATERIAL AND METHODS: Four fresh bovine ribs were acquired and surgical guides fabricated with five sites per rib (n = 20), for proper site preparation. Implant sites were prepared via conventional drilling technique as per manufacturer's instruction (Implantium) or via Piezoelectric (Mectron) implant site preparation using the Implant Prep kit. Twenty 10 mm long, 3.6 mm diameter Implantium implants were placed with 35 Ncm torque; 10 implants per preparation method. RFA was assessed via the Osstell Mentor. Five values were taken per implant. All implants where subjected to a reverse torque in increasing increments of 5 until 50 Ncm force was reached. RESULTS: The five RFA values per site were averaged and plotted by placement technique. A paired t-test statistical analysis was run. The average RFA values showed no statistical significance between the 10 test (RFA = 69.04 ± 5.11) and 10 control (RFA = 70.94 ± 6.41) sites (P > 0.05). All implants in both groups withstood RTT up to 50 Ncm force without movement and thus showed no statistical differences. CONCLUSION: Results of this ex vivo study imply that the Piezoelectric implant site preparation affords similar primary implant stability in comparison to conventional rotary instrumentation in cortical bone.