Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Primary implant stability and bone preservation are critical determinants of successful osseointegration, particularly in sites with low bone density. Conventional drilling removes bone and may reduce stability, whereas osseo-densification is a non-subtractive technique that compacts bone to enhance its density and strength.
Objective:
To compare osseo-densification and conventional drilling techniques in terms of implant primary stability, peri-implant bone density, and marginal bone loss during early healing.
Methods:
A double-blinded, randomized split-mouth clinical trial was conducted on eight participants requiring bilateral maxillary implants (n = 16 sites). Each patient received one implant using the osseo-densification technique (Densah burs, counterclockwise mode) and one using conventional sequential drilling. Cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) was used to evaluate bone density and marginal bone levels at baseline, three, and six-months post-placement. Implant stability was measured immediately after insertion using resonance frequency analysis (Osstell ISQ). Data were analysed using t-tests and repeated-measures ANOVA (p < 0.05).
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
| Label | Type | Description | Intervention Names |
|---|---|---|---|
| Osseodensification | Experimental |
| |
| Conventional drilling | Active Comparator |
|
| Name | Type | Description | Arm Group Labels | Other Names |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Osseodensification | Procedure | osseo-densification is a recently introduced, non-subtractive drilling technique that utilizes specially designed densifying burs in a counterclockwise (densifying) mode to laterally compact and autograft bone along the osteotomy walls.[9] This compaction of trabecular bone increases bone density, enhances primary stability, and may improve long-term bone-to-implant contact. |
| Measure | Description | Time Frame |
|---|---|---|
| Bone density | Assessed by 3D Cone Beam Computed Tomography | Was assessed 3 times; *Baseline. * after 3 months. * after 6 months. |
| Measure | Description | Time Frame |
|---|---|---|
| Marginal bone height | Assessed by 3D Cone Beam Computed Tomography | Was assessed 3 times; *Baseline. * after 3 months. * after 6 months. |
| Measure | Description | Time Frame |
|---|---|---|
| Implant stability | Measured using resonance frequency analysis (ISQ) | assessed only once; *immediately postsurgical |
Inclusion Criteria:
• Systemically and medically healthy adults (>18 years old) of either sex.
Exclusion Criteria:
• Systemic medical conditions that could compromise surgical healing or osseointegration (e.g., uncontrolled diabetes mellitus).
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
| Facility | Status | City | State | ZIP | Country | Contacts |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Suez Canal University | Ismailia | Ismalia | 41522 | Egypt |
| PubMed Identifier | Type | Citation | Retractions |
|---|---|---|---|
| Background | [1] Canullo L, Del Fabbro M, Khijmatgar S, Panda S, Ravidà A, Tommasato G, et al. Dimensional and histomorphometric evaluation of biomaterials used for alveolar ridge preservation: a systematic review and network meta-analysis. Clin Oral Investig 2022; 26:141-58. [2] Jafarian M, Etebarian A. Reasons for Extraction of Permanent Teeth in General Dental Practices in Tehran, Iran. Medical Principles and Practice 2013; 22:239-44. [3] Schropp L, Wenzel A, Kostopoulos L, Karring T. Bone healing and soft tissue contour changes following single-tooth extraction: a clinical and radiographic 12-month prospective study. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent 2003; 23:313-23. [4] Buser D, Martin W, Belser UC. Optimizing esthetics for implant restorations in the anterior maxilla: anatomic and surgical considerations. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2004; 19:43-61. [5] Pjetursson BE, Thoma D, Jung R, Zwahlen M, Zembic A. A systematic review of the survival and complication rates of implant-supported fixed dental prostheses (FDPs) after a mean observation period of at least 5 years. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2012;23(Suppl 6):22-38. [6] Jung RE, Zembic A, Pjetursson BE, Zwahlen M, Thoma DS. Systematic review of the survival rate and the incidence of biological, technical, and esthetic complications of single crowns on implants. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2012;23(Suppl 6):2-21. [7] Molly L. Bone density and primary stability in implant therapy. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2006;17(Suppl 2):124-135. [8] Turkyilmaz I, McGlumphy EA. Influence of bone density on implant stability parameters and implant success: a retrospective clinical study. BMC Oral Health. 2008; 8:32. [9] Huwais S, Meyer EG. A novel osseous densification approach in implant osteotomy preparation to increase biomechanical primary stability, bone mineral density, and bone-to-implant contact. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2017;32(1):27-36. [10] Trisi P, Berardini M, Falco A, Podaliri Vulpiani M. New osseo-densificat |
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
|
| Conventional drilling | Procedure | Traditionally, implant osteotomies are prepared using conventional subtractive drilling, which removes bone to create space for implant insertion. |
|