Simplified drilling technique does not decrease dental implant osseointegration

A preliminary report

Ryo Jimbo, Gabriela Giro, Charles Marin, Rodrigo Granato, Marcelo Suzuki, Nick Tovar, Thomas Lilin, Malvin Janal, Paulo Coelho

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

Background: To date, some experimental studies have addressed the effect of bone drilling technique and sequence on dental implant osseointegration. In the present study, the authors hypothesize that there would be no differences in osseointegration when reducing the number of drills for osteotomy compared to the conventional drilling protocols. Methods: Seventy-two implants (diameters 3.75 mm and 4.2 mm; n = 36 for each diameter) were bilaterally placed in the tibia of 18 beagles for 1, 3, and 5 weeks. Half of the implants of each diameter were placed using a simplified drilling procedure (pilot and final drill), and the other half were placed using a conventional drilling procedure (all drills in sequence). The retrieved samples were subjected to histologic and histomorphometric evaluation. Results: Histology showed that new bone formed around the implant, and inflammation or bone resorption was not evident for both groups. Histomorphometrically, the simplified group presented significantly higher bone-to-implant contact and bone area fraction occupancy compared to the conventional group after 1 week; however, no differences were detected at 3 and 5 weeks. Conclusion: Bone responses to the implant with the simplified protocol can be comparable to the conventional protocol. J Periodontol 2013;84:1599-1605.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)1599-1605
Number of pages7
JournalJournal of Periodontology
Volume84
Issue number11
DOIs
StatePublished - Nov 2013

Fingerprint

Osseointegration
Dental Implants
Mandrillus
Bone and Bones
Bone Resorption
Osteotomy
Tibia
Histology
Inflammation

Keywords

  • Histology
  • Oral surgery procedures
  • Osseointegration
  • Osteonecrosis
  • Osteotomy

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Periodontics

Cite this

Simplified drilling technique does not decrease dental implant osseointegration : A preliminary report. / Jimbo, Ryo; Giro, Gabriela; Marin, Charles; Granato, Rodrigo; Suzuki, Marcelo; Tovar, Nick; Lilin, Thomas; Janal, Malvin; Coelho, Paulo.

In: Journal of Periodontology, Vol. 84, No. 11, 11.2013, p. 1599-1605.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Jimbo, R, Giro, G, Marin, C, Granato, R, Suzuki, M, Tovar, N, Lilin, T, Janal, M & Coelho, P 2013, 'Simplified drilling technique does not decrease dental implant osseointegration: A preliminary report', Journal of Periodontology, vol. 84, no. 11, pp. 1599-1605. https://doi.org/10.1902/jop.2012.120565
Jimbo, Ryo ; Giro, Gabriela ; Marin, Charles ; Granato, Rodrigo ; Suzuki, Marcelo ; Tovar, Nick ; Lilin, Thomas ; Janal, Malvin ; Coelho, Paulo. / Simplified drilling technique does not decrease dental implant osseointegration : A preliminary report. In: Journal of Periodontology. 2013 ; Vol. 84, No. 11. pp. 1599-1605.
@article{19809c5e67bd43f5890aa96c5524bd41,
title = "Simplified drilling technique does not decrease dental implant osseointegration: A preliminary report",
abstract = "Background: To date, some experimental studies have addressed the effect of bone drilling technique and sequence on dental implant osseointegration. In the present study, the authors hypothesize that there would be no differences in osseointegration when reducing the number of drills for osteotomy compared to the conventional drilling protocols. Methods: Seventy-two implants (diameters 3.75 mm and 4.2 mm; n = 36 for each diameter) were bilaterally placed in the tibia of 18 beagles for 1, 3, and 5 weeks. Half of the implants of each diameter were placed using a simplified drilling procedure (pilot and final drill), and the other half were placed using a conventional drilling procedure (all drills in sequence). The retrieved samples were subjected to histologic and histomorphometric evaluation. Results: Histology showed that new bone formed around the implant, and inflammation or bone resorption was not evident for both groups. Histomorphometrically, the simplified group presented significantly higher bone-to-implant contact and bone area fraction occupancy compared to the conventional group after 1 week; however, no differences were detected at 3 and 5 weeks. Conclusion: Bone responses to the implant with the simplified protocol can be comparable to the conventional protocol. J Periodontol 2013;84:1599-1605.",
keywords = "Histology, Oral surgery procedures, Osseointegration, Osteonecrosis, Osteotomy",
author = "Ryo Jimbo and Gabriela Giro and Charles Marin and Rodrigo Granato and Marcelo Suzuki and Nick Tovar and Thomas Lilin and Malvin Janal and Paulo Coelho",
year = "2013",
month = "11",
doi = "10.1902/jop.2012.120565",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "84",
pages = "1599--1605",
journal = "Journal of Periodontology",
issn = "0022-3492",
publisher = "American Academy of Periodontology",
number = "11",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Simplified drilling technique does not decrease dental implant osseointegration

T2 - A preliminary report

AU - Jimbo, Ryo

AU - Giro, Gabriela

AU - Marin, Charles

AU - Granato, Rodrigo

AU - Suzuki, Marcelo

AU - Tovar, Nick

AU - Lilin, Thomas

AU - Janal, Malvin

AU - Coelho, Paulo

PY - 2013/11

Y1 - 2013/11

N2 - Background: To date, some experimental studies have addressed the effect of bone drilling technique and sequence on dental implant osseointegration. In the present study, the authors hypothesize that there would be no differences in osseointegration when reducing the number of drills for osteotomy compared to the conventional drilling protocols. Methods: Seventy-two implants (diameters 3.75 mm and 4.2 mm; n = 36 for each diameter) were bilaterally placed in the tibia of 18 beagles for 1, 3, and 5 weeks. Half of the implants of each diameter were placed using a simplified drilling procedure (pilot and final drill), and the other half were placed using a conventional drilling procedure (all drills in sequence). The retrieved samples were subjected to histologic and histomorphometric evaluation. Results: Histology showed that new bone formed around the implant, and inflammation or bone resorption was not evident for both groups. Histomorphometrically, the simplified group presented significantly higher bone-to-implant contact and bone area fraction occupancy compared to the conventional group after 1 week; however, no differences were detected at 3 and 5 weeks. Conclusion: Bone responses to the implant with the simplified protocol can be comparable to the conventional protocol. J Periodontol 2013;84:1599-1605.

AB - Background: To date, some experimental studies have addressed the effect of bone drilling technique and sequence on dental implant osseointegration. In the present study, the authors hypothesize that there would be no differences in osseointegration when reducing the number of drills for osteotomy compared to the conventional drilling protocols. Methods: Seventy-two implants (diameters 3.75 mm and 4.2 mm; n = 36 for each diameter) were bilaterally placed in the tibia of 18 beagles for 1, 3, and 5 weeks. Half of the implants of each diameter were placed using a simplified drilling procedure (pilot and final drill), and the other half were placed using a conventional drilling procedure (all drills in sequence). The retrieved samples were subjected to histologic and histomorphometric evaluation. Results: Histology showed that new bone formed around the implant, and inflammation or bone resorption was not evident for both groups. Histomorphometrically, the simplified group presented significantly higher bone-to-implant contact and bone area fraction occupancy compared to the conventional group after 1 week; however, no differences were detected at 3 and 5 weeks. Conclusion: Bone responses to the implant with the simplified protocol can be comparable to the conventional protocol. J Periodontol 2013;84:1599-1605.

KW - Histology

KW - Oral surgery procedures

KW - Osseointegration

KW - Osteonecrosis

KW - Osteotomy

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84885426829&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84885426829&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1902/jop.2012.120565

DO - 10.1902/jop.2012.120565

M3 - Article

VL - 84

SP - 1599

EP - 1605

JO - Journal of Periodontology

JF - Journal of Periodontology

SN - 0022-3492

IS - 11

ER -