Literature DB >> 27525521

Implant Drill Characteristics: Thermal and Mechanical Effects of Two-, Three-, and Four-Fluted Drills.

Hyun Jun Oh, Beom Ik Kim, Hae-Young Kim, In-Sung Yeo, Ulf Me Wikesjö, Ki-Tae Koo.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: Avoiding excessive trauma--thermal or otherwise--during dental implant site preparation is considered critical to implant success; overheating is considered to be a major cause of bone necrosis. Studies evaluating thermal and mechanical effects of implant drill design are limited, and effects of flute design have not been accounted for. The purpose of this study was to compare heat generation and cutting efficiency associated with two-, three-, and four-fluted implant drills to investigate the optimal number of flutes.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Two-, three-, and four-fluted dental implant drills with identical point, relief, and rake angles and otherwise standard dimensions were evaluated. Real-time temperature changes while drilling artificial bone were recorded using an infrared thermal imager. Cutting efficiency was assessed as the drilling time to a 15-mm depth under constant load using a specially designed recording system. Each drill variation was examined 20 times. A one-way analysis of variance was used for statistical analysis.
RESULTS: Mean temperature increases amounted to 8.3°C, 10.8°C, and 15.1°C for two-, three-, and four-fluted drills, respectively; temperatures significantly increased (P < .001) with an increased number of flutes. Mean drilling time serving as a measure of cutting efficiency amounted to 2.6, 2.5, and 2.5 seconds for the two-, three-, and four-fluted drills, respectively. A trend of cutting efficiency increasing or decreasing according to the number of flutes was not observed. Differences in cutting efficiency among the three drill variations were statistically significant (P = .015). The cutting efficiency of the three-fluted drill was superior to that of the two-fluted drill (P = .016).
CONCLUSION: Within the limitations of the study, a two-fluted drill would be preferred for osteotomy preparation due to its level of heat generation, whereas a three-fluted drill showed favorable cutting efficiency.

Entities:  

Year:  2016        PMID: 27525521     DOI: 10.11607/jomi.4819

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


  6 in total

Review 1.  Surgical Drill Bit Design and Thermomechanical Damage in Bone Drilling: A Review.

Authors:  Mohd Faizal Ali Akhbar; Akmal Wani Sulong
Journal:  Ann Biomed Eng       Date:  2020-08-28       Impact factor: 3.934

2.  In Vitro Study on Bone Heating during Drilling of the Implant Site: Material, Design and Wear of the Surgical Drill.

Authors:  Juan Carlos Bernabeu-Mira; Hilario Pellicer-Chover; Miguel Peñarrocha-Diago; David Peñarrocha-Oltra
Journal:  Materials (Basel)       Date:  2020-04-19       Impact factor: 3.623

3.  Healing at sites prepared using different drilling protocols. An experimental study in the tibiae of sheep.

Authors:  Vittorio Favero; Shigeru Sakuma; Karol Alí Apaza Alccayhuaman; Guillermo Alejandro Benedetto; Franco Bengazi; Daniele Botticelli
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2018-08-29       Impact factor: 3.240

4.  Clinical Influence of Micromorphological Structure of Dental Implant Bone Drills.

Authors:  Gaetano Marenzi; Josè Camilla Sammartino; Giuseppe Quaremba; Vincenzo Graziano; Andrea El Hassanin; Med Erda Qorri; Gilberto Sammartino; Vincenzo Iorio-Siciliano
Journal:  Biomed Res Int       Date:  2018-06-06       Impact factor: 3.411

5.  Comparative Analysis of the Chemical Composition and Microstructure Conformation Between Different Dental Implant Bone Drills.

Authors:  Gaetano Marenzi; Josè Camilla Sammartino; Fabio Scherillo; Carlo Rengo; Alfredo De Rosa; Vincenzo Graziano; Gianrico Spagnuolo
Journal:  Materials (Basel)       Date:  2019-06-09       Impact factor: 3.623

6.  Comparison of the Bone Harvesting Capacity of an Intraoral Bone Harvesting Device and Three Different Implant Drills.

Authors:  Hyun-Chang Lim; Kyung-In Ha; Ji-Youn Hong; Ji-Young Han; Seung-Il Shin; Seung-Yun Shin; Yeek Herr; Jong-Hyuk Chung
Journal:  Biomed Res Int       Date:  2017-12-14       Impact factor: 3.411

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.