Ablative and Expansive Protocols for Bone Osteotomy in Rabbits.

IF 2.5 Q2 DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE
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.

求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Dentistry Journal
Dentistry Journal Dentistry-Dentistry (all)
CiteScore
3.70
自引率
7.70%
发文量
213
审稿时长
11 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信