Home > Journals > Minerva Stomatologica > Past Issues > Minerva Stomatologica 2019 December;68(6) > Minerva Stomatologica 2019 December;68(6):277-84

CURRENT ISSUE
 

JOURNAL TOOLS

eTOC
To subscribe PROMO
Submit an article
Recommend to your librarian
 

ARTICLE TOOLS

Publication history
Reprints
Permissions
Cite this article as

 

ORIGINAL ARTICLE   

Minerva Stomatologica 2019 December;68(6):277-84

DOI: 10.23736/S0026-4970.19.04142-6

Copyright © 2019 EDIZIONI MINERVA MEDICA

language: English

Temperatures generated during implant site preparation with conventional drilling versus single-drill method: an ex-vivo human mandible study

Christian BACCI 1 , Nicola LUCCHIARI 1, Anna C. FRIGO 2, Carla STECCO 3, Gastone ZANETTE 1, Virginia DOTTO 1, Stefano SIVOLELLA 1

1 Unit of Oral Surgery, Section of Clinical Dentistry, Department of Neurosciences, University of Padua, Padua, Italy; 2 Section of Biostatistics, Department of Cardiological, Thoracic and Vascular Sciences, University of Padua, Padua, Italy; 3 Section of Human Anatomy, Department of Molecular Medicine, University of Padua, Padua, Italy



BACKGROUND: Bone overheating during osteotomy is a potential cause of necrosis and consequent failure of dental implant osseointegration. The aim of this study is to identify any differences between conventional osteotomy with drills of increasing size and the use of a single drill in terms of the temperature increase in the bone during implant site preparation.
METHODS: Thirty-eight implant sites were prepared in ex vivo human mandibles, 19 using the conventional method with drills of increasing diameter (group A) and 19 using a single-drill method (group B), with no irrigation in either procedure. An infrared thermometer was used to measure the temperature difference (T°) induced by the drills at each site. Student’s t-test (with P<0.05) was used to compare the temperature increase induced by the last drill in group A, and by the single drill in group B.
RESULTS: The mean ΔT° in group A was 0.64 °C, while in group B it was 1.47 °C. The difference between the temperatures obtained in the two groups was statistically significant (P=0.0073).
CONCLUSIONS: In statistical terms, the two methods differ significantly in the temperature increase induced by the drilling procedure, but this difference is clinically irrelevant.


KEY WORDS: Dental implants; Osseointegration; Hot temperature; Osteonecrosis

top of page