The Effect of Osseodensification on Implant Stability and Marginal Bone Levels: A Randomized Control Clinical Trial

IF 1.7 Q3 DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE

Clinical and Experimental Dental Research Pub Date : 2025-04-10 DOI:10.1002/cre2.70126

Ioanna Politi, Bahman Honari, Lewis Winning, Ioannis Polyzois

{"title":"The Effect of Osseodensification on Implant Stability and Marginal Bone Levels: A Randomized Control Clinical Trial","authors":"Ioanna Politi, Bahman Honari, Lewis Winning, Ioannis Polyzois","doi":"10.1002/cre2.70126","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Objectives</h3>\n \n <p>To compare the implant stability quotient values (ISQ) of implants placed using implant-specific drills (CD) and osseodensification drills (OD) at three different time points and to determine the effect of both drilling techniques on marginal bone levels.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Material and Methods</h3>\n \n <p>38 subjects were recruited and ISQ values and radiographic marginal bone levels were recorded after surgery (T1), and also at 3 (T2) and 4–5 months (T3). Clinical and radiographic marginal bone levels were also recorded.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Results</h3>\n \n <p>At T1, mean ISQ values ranged from 65.5 to 81 for the CD group and 29 to 80 for the OD group. For the CD group, ISQ values were 72.20 ± 2.6 (95% CI) at T1, 75.0 ± 2.0 at T2, and 74.8 ± 2.3 at T3. The corresponding ISQ values for the OD group were 68.1 ± 5.6, 71.9 ± 1.6, and 72.2 ± 2.4, respectively. Implants placed using CD drills showed greater stability at 3 months but not at placement or at 4–5 months. No statistically significant differences were identified regarding marginal bone levels between the two groups.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Conclusions</h3>\n \n <p>There was a notable increase in implant stability over time for both treatment modalities. At T2, implants inserted into osteotomies made with standard drills exhibited significantly greater stability compared to those placed using OD drills. However, the clinical relevance of this difference is questionable, as it was not observed at T3. Marginal bone levels were comparable for both groups over all time points.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Trial Registration</h3>\n \n <p>ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT05376020</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":10203,"journal":{"name":"Clinical and Experimental Dental Research","volume":"11 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/cre2.70126","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical and Experimental Dental Research","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/cre2.70126","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objectives

To compare the implant stability quotient values (ISQ) of implants placed using implant-specific drills (CD) and osseodensification drills (OD) at three different time points and to determine the effect of both drilling techniques on marginal bone levels.

Material and Methods

38 subjects were recruited and ISQ values and radiographic marginal bone levels were recorded after surgery (T1), and also at 3 (T2) and 4–5 months (T3). Clinical and radiographic marginal bone levels were also recorded.

Results

At T1, mean ISQ values ranged from 65.5 to 81 for the CD group and 29 to 80 for the OD group. For the CD group, ISQ values were 72.20 ± 2.6 (95% CI) at T1, 75.0 ± 2.0 at T2, and 74.8 ± 2.3 at T3. The corresponding ISQ values for the OD group were 68.1 ± 5.6, 71.9 ± 1.6, and 72.2 ± 2.4, respectively. Implants placed using CD drills showed greater stability at 3 months but not at placement or at 4–5 months. No statistically significant differences were identified regarding marginal bone levels between the two groups.

Conclusions

There was a notable increase in implant stability over time for both treatment modalities. At T2, implants inserted into osteotomies made with standard drills exhibited significantly greater stability compared to those placed using OD drills. However, the clinical relevance of this difference is questionable, as it was not observed at T3. Marginal bone levels were comparable for both groups over all time points.

Trial Registration

ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT05376020

Abstract Image

查看原文本刊更多论文

骨致密化对种植体稳定性和边缘骨水平的影响：一项随机对照临床试验

目的比较种植体特异性钻孔（CD）和骨密度钻孔（OD）在三个不同时间点的种植体稳定性商值（ISQ），并确定两种钻孔技术对边缘骨水平的影响。材料与方法招募38名受试者，记录手术后（T1）、3 （T2）和4-5个月（T3）的ISQ值和边缘骨水平。同时记录临床和影像学边缘骨水平。结果T1时，CD组的平均ISQ值为65.5 ~ 81，OD组的平均ISQ值为29 ~ 80。CD组T1时ISQ值为72.20±2.6 (95% CI)， T2时为75.0±2.0，T3时为74.8±2.3。OD组相应的ISQ值分别为68.1±5.6、71.9±1.6、72.2±2.4。使用CD钻头放置种植体在3个月时表现出更大的稳定性，但在放置或4-5个月时则没有。两组之间的边缘骨水平没有统计学上的显著差异。结论：随着时间的推移，两种治疗方式的种植体稳定性都有显著提高。T2时，与使用外径钻孔的植入物相比，使用标准钻孔的植入物在截骨术中表现出更大的稳定性。然而，这种差异的临床相关性值得怀疑，因为在T3时没有观察到。两组的边缘骨水平在所有时间点上都具有可比性。试验注册ClinicalTrials.gov标识符：NCT05376020

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文求助全文

来源期刊

Clinical and Experimental Dental Research DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE-

CiteScore

3.30

自引率

5.60%

发文量

165

审稿时长

26 weeks

期刊介绍： Clinical and Experimental Dental Research aims to provide open access peer-reviewed publications of high scientific quality representing original clinical, diagnostic or experimental work within all disciplines and fields of oral medicine and dentistry. The scope of Clinical and Experimental Dental Research comprises original research material on the anatomy, physiology and pathology of oro-facial, oro-pharyngeal and maxillofacial tissues, and functions and dysfunctions within the stomatognathic system, and the epidemiology, aetiology, prevention, diagnosis, prognosis and therapy of diseases and conditions that have an effect on the homeostasis of the mouth, jaws, and closely associated structures, as well as the healing and regeneration and the clinical aspects of replacement of hard and soft tissues with biomaterials, and the rehabilitation of stomatognathic functions. Studies that bring new knowledge on how to advance health on the individual or public health levels, including interactions between oral and general health and ill-health are welcome.