Clinical Evaluation of Implant Stability in Poor Quality Maxillary Bone: Reverse Drilling vs Osteotome Techniques: A Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial.

Q3 Dentistry
Mostafa M Awad, Marwa El Nawawy, Ibrahim El Refaie, Amr F Zahran
{"title":"Clinical Evaluation of Implant Stability in Poor Quality Maxillary Bone: Reverse Drilling vs Osteotome Techniques: A Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial.","authors":"Mostafa M Awad, Marwa El Nawawy, Ibrahim El Refaie, Amr F Zahran","doi":"10.5005/jp-journals-10024-3808","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Aim: </strong>The current study was conducted to evaluate the potential of a dental implant placed with a new reverse drilling technique (test group) as an alternative treatment option to a dental implant placed with an osteotome technique (control group) according to primary implant stability.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>With fourteen patients in each group, twenty-eight implants were positioned in the posterior maxilla and split equally between two groups: Group A (new reverse drilling technique) and group B (osteotome technique). Periotest M (PTV) was used to measure implant stability, cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) was used to measure crestal bone loss (mm) and bone density Hounsfield units (HU), and the visual analog scale (VAS) was used to measure pain and swelling. The patients were monitored for 5 months. For statistical analysis, SPSS (version 20) was utilized, and statistical significance was established at <i>p</i> < 0.05.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Regarding the primary outcome of the study, the primary stability of the control group (osteotome technique) showed higher primary stability than the test group (reverse drilling technique). The Mann-Whitney <i>U</i> test revealed that this difference was not statistically significant (<i>p</i> = 0.4820) with a mean value of 0.23 and ±0.33 standard deviation. Crestal bone loss was 0.13 ± 0.06 mm greater measured mesially in the osteotome group and 0.04 ± 0.07 mm greater measured distally in the osteotome group. In each case, the differences were not statistically significant according to independent samples <i>t</i>-tests (mesial: <i>p</i> = 0.05974; distal: <i>p</i> = 0.55541).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The two implant placement protocols showed comparable implant stability (PTV) and implant success; the reverse drilling technique is potentially a viable option for the treatment of patients with poor bone quality.</p><p><strong>Clinical significance: </strong>The reverse drilling technique can be used as an alternative to the osteotome technique when placing implants in the posterior maxilla for its comparatively reduced invasiveness and higher patient acceptance in terms of pain and swelling. How to cite this article: Awad MM, El Nawawy M, El Refaie I, <i>et al.</i> Clinical Evaluation of Implant Stability in Poor Quality Maxillary Bone: Reverse Drilling vs Osteotome Techniques: A Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial. J Contemp Dent Pract 2025;26(1):10-17.</p>","PeriodicalId":35792,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Contemporary Dental Practice","volume":"26 1","pages":"10-17"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Contemporary Dental Practice","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5005/jp-journals-10024-3808","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Dentistry","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Aim: The current study was conducted to evaluate the potential of a dental implant placed with a new reverse drilling technique (test group) as an alternative treatment option to a dental implant placed with an osteotome technique (control group) according to primary implant stability.

Materials and methods: With fourteen patients in each group, twenty-eight implants were positioned in the posterior maxilla and split equally between two groups: Group A (new reverse drilling technique) and group B (osteotome technique). Periotest M (PTV) was used to measure implant stability, cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) was used to measure crestal bone loss (mm) and bone density Hounsfield units (HU), and the visual analog scale (VAS) was used to measure pain and swelling. The patients were monitored for 5 months. For statistical analysis, SPSS (version 20) was utilized, and statistical significance was established at p < 0.05.

Results: Regarding the primary outcome of the study, the primary stability of the control group (osteotome technique) showed higher primary stability than the test group (reverse drilling technique). The Mann-Whitney U test revealed that this difference was not statistically significant (p = 0.4820) with a mean value of 0.23 and ±0.33 standard deviation. Crestal bone loss was 0.13 ± 0.06 mm greater measured mesially in the osteotome group and 0.04 ± 0.07 mm greater measured distally in the osteotome group. In each case, the differences were not statistically significant according to independent samples t-tests (mesial: p = 0.05974; distal: p = 0.55541).

Conclusion: The two implant placement protocols showed comparable implant stability (PTV) and implant success; the reverse drilling technique is potentially a viable option for the treatment of patients with poor bone quality.

Clinical significance: The reverse drilling technique can be used as an alternative to the osteotome technique when placing implants in the posterior maxilla for its comparatively reduced invasiveness and higher patient acceptance in terms of pain and swelling. How to cite this article: Awad MM, El Nawawy M, El Refaie I, et al. Clinical Evaluation of Implant Stability in Poor Quality Maxillary Bone: Reverse Drilling vs Osteotome Techniques: A Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial. J Contemp Dent Pract 2025;26(1):10-17.

不良上颌骨种植体稳定性的临床评价:反向钻孔与成骨技术:一项随机对照临床试验。
目的:目前的研究是根据初级种植体的稳定性来评估使用新的反向钻孔技术放置的种植体(试验组)作为使用成骨技术放置的种植体(对照组)的替代治疗选择的潜力。材料和方法:每组14例患者,将28个种植体放置在上颌骨后,平均分为A组(新型反向钻孔技术)和B组(成骨技术)。采用骨膜测试(Periotest M, PTV)测量种植体稳定性,采用锥形束计算机断层扫描(cone-beam computed tomography, CBCT)测量牙冠骨损失(mm)和骨密度Hounsfield单位(HU),采用视觉模拟量表(visual analogue scale, VAS)测量疼痛和肿胀。随访5个月。统计学分析采用SPSS (version 20)软件,p < 0.05具有统计学意义。结果:在本研究的主要结局中,对照组(取骨术)的主要稳定性高于试验组(反钻术)。Mann-Whitney U检验显示,该差异无统计学意义(p = 0.4820),平均值为0.23,标准差为±0.33。截骨组近端骨损失增加0.13±0.06 mm,远端骨损失增加0.04±0.07 mm。在每种情况下,根据独立样本t检验,差异无统计学意义(中位数:p = 0.05974;远端:p = 0.55541)。结论:两种种植体放置方案具有相当的种植体稳定性(PTV)和种植成功率;反向钻孔技术是治疗骨质量差患者的潜在可行选择。临床意义:在上颌骨后缘放置种植体时,反向钻孔技术侵入性相对较小,在疼痛和肿胀方面患者接受度较高,可作为成骨技术的替代方法。如何引用本文:Awad MM, El Nawawy M, El Refaie I,等。不良上颌骨种植体稳定性的临床评价:反向钻孔与成骨技术:一项随机对照临床试验。现代医疗实践[J]; 2025;26(1):10-17。
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
Journal of Contemporary Dental Practice
Journal of Contemporary Dental Practice Dentistry-Dentistry (all)
CiteScore
1.80
自引率
0.00%
发文量
174
期刊介绍: The Journal of Contemporary Dental Practice (JCDP), is a peer-reviewed, open access MEDLINE indexed journal. The journal’s full text is available online at http://www.thejcdp.com. The journal allows free access (open access) to its contents. Articles with clinical relevance will be given preference for publication. The Journal publishes original research papers, review articles, rare and novel case reports, and clinical techniques. Manuscripts are invited from all specialties of dentistry i.e., conservative dentistry and endodontics, dentofacial orthopedics and orthodontics, oral medicine and radiology, oral pathology, oral surgery, orodental diseases, pediatric dentistry, implantology, periodontics, clinical aspects of public health dentistry, and prosthodontics.
×
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