Biomechanical Parameters of Implants Placed with Osseodensification Versus Implants Placed with Under-drilling Osteotomy Techniques in Posterior Maxilla: A Comparative Clinical Study

Darko Veljanovski; Mihajlo Petrovski; Kiro Papakoca; Vanco Spirov; Zoran  Susak; Denis  Baftijari; Alil  Dervishoski

doi:10.3889/oamjms.2024.11916

Authors

Darko Veljanovski Faculty of Medical Sciences, Goce Delcev University, Stip, Macedonia https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9004-0764
Mihajlo Petrovski Faculty of Medical Sciences, Goce Delcev University, Stip, Macedonia https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4651-7964
Kiro Papakoca Faculty of Medical Sciences, Goce Delcev University, Stip, Macedonia
Vanco Spirov Faculty of Medical Sciences, Goce Delcev University, Stip, Macedonia
Zoran Susak Faculty of Medical Sciences, Goce Delcev University, Stip, Macedonia
Denis Baftijari Faculty of Medical Sciences, University of Tetovo, Macedonia
Alil Dervishoski Medical Faculty, Ss. Cyril and Methodius University, Skopje, Macedonia

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.3889/oamjms.2024.11916

Keywords:

Low bone density, Osseointegration, Osteotomy, Resonance frequency analysis, Under-drilling, Osseodensification

Abstract

BACKGROUND: To facilitate better implant survival rates in areas with clinically low bone density, osteotomy techniques that provide higher implant stability and improve bone quality are often recommended. The most widely used are under-drilling (UD) and osseodensification (OD). In the UD technique, the diameter of the final osteotomy drill is narrower that the diameter of the placed implant, whereas in the OD technique, special drills that rotate counter-clockwise to condense and densify the bone are used.

AIM: The aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of two different implant osteotomy methods – UD versus osseodensification (OD) in terms of implant stability during the period of osseointegration in the posterior maxillary region.

MATERIAL AND METHODS: This prospective randomized clinical study included 22 patients who received a total of 37 implants in the posterior maxillary region. They were divided into two groups: In 11 patients, 18 implants were placed using the under-drilling method (UD), while the other 11 patients received 19 implants using the osseodensification method (OD). Within the OD group, 10 implants were placed in areas with the initial height that was insufficient to accommodate implants with a minimal length of 8 mm. In these areas, crestal sinus elevation without bone graft use was performed simultaneously with implant placement, according to the osseodensification protocol proposed by the manufacturer. All implants were placed in a dual-stage manner – completely covered with soft tissue and uncovered 4 months later, at the time of second-stage surgery. The implant stability was determined by measurement of implant stability quotient (ISQ) with instrument that utilizes the method of resonance frequency analysis (RFA) to discover implant stability. The ISQ represents a value on a scale between 0 and 100, with values above 65 indicating high implant stability. ISQ values were measured at two timepoints: At the time of implant placement and at the time of their uncovery. Statistical analysis was performed with Prism 9 statistical program for Mac. The data were analyzed using one-sample t-test, Wilcoxon, and paired two-way ANOVA test. The significance level was set at p ≤ 0.05.

RESULTS: The differences between the primary implant stability ISQ values in the UD and osseodensification (OD) groups were not statistically significant. The secondary implant stability was statistically significantly higher in the osseodensification group (p < 0.001) There were no statistically significant differences between secondary implant stability values in implants placed with and without crestal sinus floor lift within the osseodensification group.

CONCLUSION: Within the limitations of the study, the conclusion is that osseodensification method of implant osteotomy (OD) results in higher secondary implant stability values that the under-drilling method (UD), which has clinical relevance regarding long-term implant survival. It should be a preferred method of choice for osteotomy in areas with clinically low density of bone due to its predictability and effectiveness.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Metrics

Metrics Loading ...

Plum Analytics Artifact Widget Block

References

Huwais S, Meyer EG. A novel osseous densification approach in implant osteotomy preparation to increase biomechanical primary stability, bone mineral density, and bone-to-implant contact. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2017;32(1):27-36. https://doi.org/10.11607/jomi.4817 PMid:27741329

De Oliveira PG, Bergamo ET, Neiva R, Bonfante EA, Witek L, Tovar N, et al. Osseodensification outperforms conventional implant subtractive instrumentation: A study in sheep. Mater Sci Eng C Mater Biol Appl. 2018;90:300-7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.msec.2018.04.051 PMid:29853095

Mello-Machado RC, Mourao CF, Javid K, Ferreira HT, Montemezzi P, Calasans-Maia MD, et al. Clinical assessment of dental implants placed in low-quality bone sites prepared for the healing chamber with osseodensification concept: A double- blind, randomized clinical trial. Appl Sci. 2021;11(2):640. https://doi.org/10.3390/app11020640 Da Rosa JC, Rosa AC, Huwais S. Use of the immediate dentoalveolar restoration technique combined with osseodensification in periodontally compromised extraction sites. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent. 2019;39(4):527-34. https://doi.org/10.11607/prd.3883 PMid:31226191

Bonfante EA, Jimbo R, Witek L, Tovar N, Neiva R, Torroni A, et al. Biomaterial and biomechanical considerations to prevent risks in implant therapy. Periodontol 2000. 2019;81(1):139-51. https://doi.org/10.1111/prd.12288 PMid:31407440

Coelho PG, Jimbo R. Osseointegration of metallic devices: Current trends based on implant hardware design. Arch Biochem Biophys. 2014;561:99-108. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. abb.2014.06.033 PMid:25010447

Coelho PG, Jimbo R, Tovar N, Bonfante EA. Osseointegration: Hierarchical designing encompassing the macrometer, micrometer, and nanometer length scales. Dent Mater. 2015;31(1):37-52. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dental.2014.10.007 PMid:25467952

Stocchero M, Toia M, Cecchinato D, Becktor JP, Coelho PG, Jimbo R. Biomechanical, biologic, and clinical outcomes of undersized implant surgical preparation: A systematic review. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2016;31(6):1247-63. https://doi.org/10.11607/jomi.5340 PMid:27861649

Raghavendra S, Wood MC, Taylor TD. Early wound healing around endosseous implants: A review of the literature. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2005;20(3):425-31. PMid:15973954

Alifarag AM, Lopez CD, Neiva RF, Tovar N, Witek L, Coelho PG. Atemporal osseointegration: Early biomechanical stability through osseodensification. J Orthop Res. 2018;36(9):2516-23. https://doi.org/10.1002/jor.23893 PMid:29537128

Lahens B, Lopez CD, Neiva RF, Bowers MM, Jimbo R, Bonfante EA, et al. The effect of osseodensification drilling for endosteal implants with different surface treatments: A study in sheep. J Biomed Mater Res B Appl Biomater. 2019;107(3):615-23. https://doi.org/10.1002/jbm.b.34154 PMid:30080320

Lahens B, Neiva R, Tovar N, Alifarag AM, Jimbo R, Bonfante EA, et al. Biomechanical and histologic basis of osseodensification

drilling for endosteal implant placement in low density bone. An experimental study in sheep. J Mech Behav Biomed Mater. 2016;63:56-65. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmbbm.2016.06.007 PMid:27341291

Trisi P, Berardini M, Falco A, Vulpiani MP. New osseodensification implant site preparation method to increase bone density in low-density bone: In vivo evaluation in sheep. Implant Dent. 2016;25(1):24-31. https://doi.org/10.1097/ID.0000000000000358 PMid:26584202

Faot F, Bielemann AM, Schuster AJ, Marcello-Machado RM, Del Bel Cury AA, Nascimento GG, et al. Influence of insertion torque on clinical and biological outcomes before and after loading of mandibular implant-retained overdentures in atrophic edentulous mandibles. Biomed Res Int. 2019;2019:8132520. https://doi.org/10.1155/2019/8132520 PMid:31275984

Walker LR, Morris GA, Novotny PJ. Implant insertional torque values predict outcomes. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2011;69(5):1344-9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joms.2010.11.008 PMid:21398013

Nedir R, Bischof M, Szmukler-Moncler S, Bernard JP, Samson J. Predicting osseointegration by means of implant primary stability. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2004;15(5):520-8. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0501.2004.01059.x PMid:15355393

Trisi P, Perfetti G, Baldoni E, Berardi D, Colagiovanni M, Scogna G. Implant micromotion is related to peak insertion torque and bone density. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2009;20(5):467-71. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0501.2008.01679.x PMid:19522976

Cheng Q, Su YY, Wang X, Chen S. Clinical outcomes following immediate loading of single-tooth implants in the esthetic zone: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2020;35:167-77. https://doi.org/10.11607/jomi.7548 PMid:31923299

Gallardo YN, Da Silva-Olivio IR, Gonzaga L, Sesma N, Martin W. A systematic review of clinical outcomes on patients rehabilitated with complete-arch fixed implant-supported prostheses according to the time of loading. J Prosthodont. 2019;28(9):958-68. https://doi.org/10.1111/jopr.13104 PMid:31433096

Huwais S. Fluted Osteotome and Surgical Method for Use. Michigan, US. Huwais IP Holding LLC; 2013.

Witek L, Neiva R, Alifarag A, Shahraki F, Sayah G, Tovar N, et al. Absence of healing impairment in osteotomies prepared via osseodensification drilling. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent. 2019;39(1):65-71. https://doi.org/10.11607/prd.3504 PMid:30543729

Halldin A, Jimbo R, Johansson CB, Wennerberg A, JacobssonM, Albrektsson T, et al. The effect of static bone strain on implant stability and bone remodeling. Bone. 2011;49(4):783-9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bone.2011.07.003 PMid:21782050

Gallucci GO, Benic GI, Eckert SE, Papaspyridakos P, Schimmel M, Schrott A, et al. Consensus statements and clinical recommendations for implant loading protocols. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2014;29 Suppl:287-90. https://doi.org/10.11607/jomi.2013.g4 PMid: 24660204

Wu D, Isaksson P, Ferguson SJ, Persson C. Young’s modulus of trabecular bone at the tissue level: A review. Acta Biomater. 2018;78:1-12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actbio.2018.08.001 PMid:30081232

Kold S, Bechtold JE, Ding M, Chareancholvanich K, Rahbek O, Soballe K. Compacted cancellous bone has a spring-back effect. Acta Orthop Scand. 2003;74(5):591-5. https://doi.org/10.1080/00016470310018018 PMid:14620982

Padhye NM, PadhyeAM, Bhatavadekar NB. Osseodensification-a systematic review and qualitative analysis of published literature. J Oral Biol Craniofac Res. 2020;10(1):375-80. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jobcr.2019.10.002 PMid:31737477

Lemos CA, Ferro-Alves ML, Okamoto R, Mendonca MR, Pellizzer EP. Short dental implants versus standard dental implants placed in the posterior jaws: A systematic review and meta-analysis. J Dent. 2016;47:8-17. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdent.2016.01.005 PMid:26804969

Sohrabi K, Mushantat A, Esfandiari S, Feine J. How successful are small-diameter implants? A literature review. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2012;23(5):515-25. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0501.2011.02410.x PMid:22313216

Schiegnitz E, Al-Nawas B. Narrow-diameter implants: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2018;29(Suppl 16):21-40. https://doi.org/10.1111/clr.13272 PMid:30328192

Al-Johany SS, Al Amri MD, Alsaeed S, Alalola B. Dental implant length and diameter: A proposed classification scheme. J Prosthodont. 2017;26(3):252-60. https://doi.org/10.1111/jopr.12517 PMid:27379723

Thoma DS, Haas R, Sporniak-Tutak K, Garcia A, Taylor TD, Hammerle CH. Randomized controlled multicentre study comparing short dental implants (6 mm) versus longer dental implants (11-15 mm) in combination with sinus floor elevation procedures: 5-year data. J Clin Periodontol. 2018;45(12):1465-74. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcpe.13025 PMid:30341961

Walton JN, MacEntee MI. Choosing or refusing oral implants: A prospective study of edentulous volunteers for a clinical trial. Int J Prosthodont. 2005;18(6):483-8. PMid:16335167

Zinsli B, Sagesser T, Mericske E, Mericske-Stern R. Clinical evaluation of small-diameter ITI implants: A prospective study. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2004;19(1):92-9. PMid:14982361

Torroella-Saura G, Mareque-Bueno J, Cabratosa-Termes J, Hernandez-Alfaro F, Ferres-Padro E, Calvo-Guirado JL. Effect of implant design in immediate loading. A randomized, controlled, split-mouth, prospective clinical trial. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2015;26(3):240-4. https://doi.org/10.1111/clr.12506 PMid:25327537

Beutel BG, Danna NR, Granato R, Bonfante EA, Marin C, Tovar N, et al. Implant design and its effects on osseointegration over time within cortical and trabecular bone. J Biomed Mater Res B Appl Biomater. 2016;104(6):1091-7. https://doi.org/10.1002/jbm.b.33463 PMid:26034012

Bergamo ET, Zahoui A, Barrera RB, Huwais S, Coelho PG, Karateew ED, et al. Osseodensification effect on implants primary and secondary stability: Multicenter controlled clinical trial. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2021;23(3):317-28. https://doi.org/10.1111/cid.13007 PMid:34047046

Fontes Pereira J, Costa R, Nunes Vasques M, Salazar F, Mendes JM, Infante da Câmara M. Osseodensification: An alternative to conventional osteotomy in implant site preparation: A systematic review. J Clin Med. 2023;12(22):7046. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm12227046 PMid: 38002660

Costa JA, Mendes JM, Salazar F, Pacheco JJ, Rompante P, Moreira JF, et al. Osseodensification vs. conventional osteotomy: A case series with cone beam computed tomography. J Clin Med. 2024;13(6):1568. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm13061568