Quintessence international (Berlin, Germany : 1985) · 2025
Thermal, mechanical, and densification analysis of osteotomy drill designs for implant placement: an analysis on foam blocks representing type IV bone.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Öztürk Ayşegül, Arısan Volkan, Guevara Rojas Godoberto
Аннотация
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.
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.