Thermal, mechanical, and densification analysis of osteotomy drill designs for implant placement: an analysis on foam blocks representing type IV bone.
{"title":"Thermal, mechanical, and densification analysis of osteotomy drill designs for implant placement: an analysis on foam blocks representing type IV bone.","authors":"Ayşegül Öztürk, Volkan Arısan, Godoberto Guevara Rojas","doi":"10.3290/j.qi.b6184384","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>To analyze the effects of three osteotomy drill designs (conventional, reverse helix, and densification) and running directions on heat generation, primary implant stability, block-to-implant contact, peri-implant block volume, and resistance to unscrewing forces in a low-density alveolar bone model.</p><p><strong>Method and materials: </strong>Eighty-eight dental implants were placed in artificial bone blocks using manual and computer-controlled osteotomies. Temperature changes, insertion torque value, resonance frequency analyses (implant stability quotient [ISQ]), block-to-implant contact, and peri-implant block volume were measured. Statistical analyses used ANOVA and Kruskal-Wallis tests (P < .05).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Densification drill designs produced the lowest temperature change (17.52 ± 2.57°C and 28.06 ± 4.35°C for the second and third drills), while conventional drills had the highest (27.53 ± 5.17°C and 38.03 ± 8.08°C). Counter-clockwise (CCW) conventional drilling significantly reduced the temperature change compared to clockwise (CW). Densification drill designs achieved the highest primary implant stability (38.01 ± 1.87 N/cm, 65.00 ± 4.69 ISQ) and removal torque (25.40 ± 5.08 N/cm), while conventional CW drills had the lowest (33.23 ± 2.91 N/cm, 61.83 ± 4.28 ISQ). Densification drill designs showed the highest peri-implant block volume (87.71 ± 4.23 mm3) but the lowest block-to-implant contact (49.12 ± 2.93%). CCW conventional drilling improved insertion torque value over CW (36.21 ± 3.63 vs 33.23 ± 2.91 N/cm).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Densification drill designs demonstrated better performance in heat reduction, primary implant stability, and peri-implant block volume, but had lower block-to-implant contact. CCW running of conventional drills showed improvements over CW in several parameters. While densification drilling excelled in most aspects, its lower block-to-implant contact and the positive outcomes of CCW conventional drilling warrant further investigation.</p>","PeriodicalId":20831,"journal":{"name":"Quintessence international","volume":"0 0","pages":"482-499"},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2025-06-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Quintessence international","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3290/j.qi.b6184384","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","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 analyze the effects of three osteotomy drill designs (conventional, reverse helix, and densification) and running directions on heat generation, primary implant stability, block-to-implant contact, peri-implant block volume, and resistance to unscrewing forces in a low-density alveolar bone model.
Method and materials: Eighty-eight dental implants were placed in artificial bone blocks using manual and computer-controlled osteotomies. Temperature changes, insertion torque value, resonance frequency analyses (implant stability quotient [ISQ]), block-to-implant contact, and peri-implant block volume were measured. Statistical analyses used ANOVA and Kruskal-Wallis tests (P < .05).
Results: Densification drill designs produced the lowest temperature change (17.52 ± 2.57°C and 28.06 ± 4.35°C for the second and third drills), while conventional drills had the highest (27.53 ± 5.17°C and 38.03 ± 8.08°C). Counter-clockwise (CCW) conventional drilling significantly reduced the temperature change compared to clockwise (CW). Densification drill designs achieved the highest primary implant stability (38.01 ± 1.87 N/cm, 65.00 ± 4.69 ISQ) and removal torque (25.40 ± 5.08 N/cm), while conventional CW drills had the lowest (33.23 ± 2.91 N/cm, 61.83 ± 4.28 ISQ). Densification drill designs showed the highest peri-implant block volume (87.71 ± 4.23 mm3) but the lowest block-to-implant contact (49.12 ± 2.93%). CCW conventional drilling improved insertion torque value over CW (36.21 ± 3.63 vs 33.23 ± 2.91 N/cm).
Conclusion: Densification drill designs demonstrated better performance in heat reduction, primary implant stability, and peri-implant block volume, but had lower block-to-implant contact. CCW running of conventional drills showed improvements over CW in several parameters. While densification drilling excelled in most aspects, its lower block-to-implant contact and the positive outcomes of CCW conventional drilling warrant further investigation.
期刊介绍：
QI has a new contemporary design but continues its time-honored tradition of serving the needs of the general practitioner with clinically relevant articles that are scientifically based. Dr Eli Eliav and his editorial board are dedicated to practitioners worldwide through the presentation of high-level research, useful clinical procedures, and educational short case reports and clinical notes. Rigorous but timely manuscript review is the first order of business in their quest to publish a high-quality selection of articles in the multiple specialties and disciplines that encompass dentistry.
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
京公网安备 11010802042870号
