Kazuhisa Kuwano, Luigi Canullo, Daniele Botticelli, Samuel Porfirio Xavier, Erick Ricardo Silva, Kaoru Kusano, Shunsuke Baba
{"title":"Ablative and Expansive Protocols for Bone Osteotomy in Rabbits.","authors":"Kazuhisa Kuwano, Luigi Canullo, Daniele Botticelli, Samuel Porfirio Xavier, Erick Ricardo Silva, Kaoru Kusano, Shunsuke Baba","doi":"10.3390/dj13030118","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><b>Background:</b> Cortical and marrow bone layer have different histomorphometric features. The traditional implant insertion technique provides for fixture stabilization through the cortical area. However, this approach has been found to result in an overstress of this bone layer, which may lead to resorption. Therefore, the aim of this study was to evaluate bone healing by applying two different implant site preparation protocols across various bone densities. <b>Materials and Methods:</b> One implant was placed in each femur and tibia of the rabbits (four implants per animal), using two distinct site preparation methods: drilling alone or drilling followed by osteotomes (funnel technique). Three regions around the implant were evaluated: cervical, marrow, and apical. The study included 12 rabbits, divided into two groups of 6 animals each, which were euthanized at 3 and 6 weeks, respectively (<i>n</i> = 6 per group). <b>Results:</b> In the cervical region of both femur and tibia, no marginal bone resorption could be detected. Similar BIC% (bone-to-implant contact percentages) were observed for funnel and drill sites after 3 weeks and 6 weeks of healing. Differences, though not statistically significant, ranged between 2.8% and 4.7%. However, higher BIC% values were observed in the femora compared to the tibia in both periods. <b>Conclusions:</b> No marginal bone loss was observed in both techniques. No statistically significant differences in bone resorption or bone-to-implant contact around the implant collar were observed when comparing two implant site preparation protocols across various bone densities. The use of osteotome did not influence the healing in the marrow region.</p>","PeriodicalId":11269,"journal":{"name":"Dentistry Journal","volume":"13 3","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.5000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11941037/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Dentistry Journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3390/dj13030118","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Background: Cortical and marrow bone layer have different histomorphometric features. The traditional implant insertion technique provides for fixture stabilization through the cortical area. However, this approach has been found to result in an overstress of this bone layer, which may lead to resorption. Therefore, the aim of this study was to evaluate bone healing by applying two different implant site preparation protocols across various bone densities. Materials and Methods: One implant was placed in each femur and tibia of the rabbits (four implants per animal), using two distinct site preparation methods: drilling alone or drilling followed by osteotomes (funnel technique). Three regions around the implant were evaluated: cervical, marrow, and apical. The study included 12 rabbits, divided into two groups of 6 animals each, which were euthanized at 3 and 6 weeks, respectively (n = 6 per group). Results: In the cervical region of both femur and tibia, no marginal bone resorption could be detected. Similar BIC% (bone-to-implant contact percentages) were observed for funnel and drill sites after 3 weeks and 6 weeks of healing. Differences, though not statistically significant, ranged between 2.8% and 4.7%. However, higher BIC% values were observed in the femora compared to the tibia in both periods. Conclusions: No marginal bone loss was observed in both techniques. No statistically significant differences in bone resorption or bone-to-implant contact around the implant collar were observed when comparing two implant site preparation protocols across various bone densities. The use of osteotome did not influence the healing in the marrow region.