Literature DB >> 29703665

Does the instrument used for the implant site preparation influence the bone-implant interface? A systematic review of clinical and animal studies.

P H W Tretto1, V Fabris1, G O Cericato1, R Sarkis-Onofre1, A Bacchi2.   

Abstract

This systematic review evaluates the influence of the instrument used for the implant site preparation on the bone-implant interface. Any type of clinical or animal study were searched for in MEDLINE/PubMed, ISI Web of Science, and SciVerse Scopus. Two independent reviewers screened titles/abstracts of articles and the full-text of potentially eligible studies. Comparisons of bone to implant contact and crestal bone loss were estimated using pairwise meta-analysis. Twenty-nine studies met the inclusion criteria. The instruments identified in the articles were conventional drills (CDs), osteotome (OT), piezoelectric device (PD), Er:YAG LASER (LS) and osseodensification drills (ODs). The meta-analysis on bone to implant contact suggested no difference between CDs and other techniques and the meta-analysis on crestal bone loss suggested no difference between CDs and PD. The survival of implants in sites prepared with CDs vs. OT or PD presented no significant differences. The use of PD provided lower inflammatory response and earlier bone formation when compared to CDs. ODs provided significant biomechanical improvement in comparison to CDs. LS did not provide any relevant improvement in comparison to CDs or PD. The influence of the instrument used for implant site preparation depended on the property evaluated.
Copyright © 2018 International Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  biomechanics; histological analysis; implant site preparation; implant survival

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2018        PMID: 29703665     DOI: 10.1016/j.ijom.2018.04.005

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg        ISSN: 0901-5027            Impact factor:   2.789


  6 in total

1.  Healing at implants installed in osteotomies prepared either with a piezoelectric device or drills: an experimental study in dogs.

Authors:  Shigeo Fujiwara; Shingo Kato; Franco Bengazi; Joaquin Urbizo Velez; Margherita Tumedei; Mitsuo Kotsu; Daniele Botticelli
Journal:  Oral Maxillofac Surg       Date:  2020-08-15

2.  Effect of osseodensification on the increase in ridge thickness and the prevention of buccal peri-implant defects: an in vitro randomized split mouth pilot study.

Authors:  Fausto Frizzera; Rubens Spin-Neto; Victor Padilha; Nicolas Nicchio; Bruna Ghiraldini; Fábio Bezerra; Elcio Marcantonio
Journal:  BMC Oral Health       Date:  2022-06-13       Impact factor: 3.747

3.  The effect of osseodensification on implant stability and bone density: A prospective observational study.

Authors:  Aseel R Hindi; Salwan Y Bede
Journal:  J Clin Exp Dent       Date:  2020-05-01

4.  A New Site Preparation Protocol That Supports Bone Quality Evaluation and Provides Predictable Implant Insertion Torque.

Authors:  Stefan Velikov; Cristiano Susin; Peter Heuberger; Ainara Irastorza-Landa
Journal:  J Clin Med       Date:  2020-02-11       Impact factor: 4.241

5.  A Retrospective Observational Study Assessing the Clinical Outcomes of a Novel Implant System with Low-Speed Site Preparation Protocol and Tri-Oval Implant Geometry.

Authors:  Giacomo Fabbri; Tristan Staas; Istvan Urban
Journal:  J Clin Med       Date:  2022-08-18       Impact factor: 4.964

6.  Under-Drilling versus Hybrid Osseodensification Technique: Differences in Implant Primary Stability and Bone Density of the Implant Bed Walls.

Authors:  Rafael Delgado-Ruiz; Joshua Gold; Tanya Somohano Marquez; Georgios Romanos
Journal:  Materials (Basel)       Date:  2020-01-15       Impact factor: 3.623

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.