The primary objective of the present in vitro study was to evaluate the influence of implant site preparation technique (drills vs ultrasonic instrumentation) on the primary stability of short dental implants with two different designs inserted in simulated low-quality cancellous bone. Eighty implant sites were prepared in custom-made solid rigid polyurethane blocks with two different low cancellous bone densities (5 or 15 pounds per cubic foot [PCF]), equally distributed between piezoelectric (Surgysonic Moto, Esacrom, Italy) and conventional drilling techniques. Two short implant systems (Prama and Syra, Sweden & Martina) were tested by inserting 40 fixtures of each system (both 6.0 mm length and 5.0 mm diameter), divided in the four subgroups (drills/5 PCF density; drills/15 PCF density; piezo/5 PCF density; piezo/15 PCF density). Insertion torque (Ncm), implant stability quotient values, removal torque (Ncm), and surgical time were recorded. Data were analyzed by 3-way ANOVA and Scheffé's test (α = 0.05). With slight variations among the considered dependent variables, overall high primary implant stability was observed across all subgroups. Piezoelectric instrumentation allowed for comparable or slightly superior primary stability in comparison with the drilling procedures in both implant systems. The Prama implants group showed the highest mean reverse torque and Syra implants the highest implant stability quotient values. Piezoelectric implant site preparation took prolonged operative time compared to conventional preparation with drills; among the drilling procedures, Syra system required fewer surgical steps and shorter operative time.
Primary Stability of Short Implants Inserted Using Piezoelectric or Drilling Systems: An In Vitro Comparison
- Views Icon Views
- Share Icon Share
- Search Site
Claudio Stacchi, Matteo De Biasi, Lucio Torelli, Massimo Robiony, Roberto Di Lenarda, Daniele Angerame; Primary Stability of Short Implants Inserted Using Piezoelectric or Drilling Systems: An In Vitro Comparison. J Oral Implantol 1 August 2019; 45 (4): 259–266. doi: https://doi.org/10.1563/aaid-joi-18-00157
Download citation file: