TY - JOUR
T1 - Influence of different drilling preparation on cortical bone
T2 - A biomechanical, histological, and micro-CT study on sheep
AU - Stocchero, Michele
AU - Toia, Marco
AU - Jinno, Yohei
AU - Cecchinato, Francesca
AU - Becktor, Jonas P.
AU - Naito, Yoshihito
AU - Halldin, Anders
AU - Jimbo, Ryo
N1 - Funding Information:
The authors are grateful to Benoit Lecuelle and Thomas Lilin from Ecole Nationale Vétérinaire d'Alfort, Paris, France and Yoko Henmi from Tokushima University, Tokushima, Japan for their valuable help.
Publisher Copyright:
© 2018 John Wiley & Sons A/S. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd
PY - 2018/7
Y1 - 2018/7
N2 - Objective: The aim of this study was to investigate the extent of cortical bone remodeling between two different drilling protocols by means of histomorphometric, µ-CT, and biomechanical analyses. Material and methods: A total of 48 implants were inserted into the mandible of six sheep following two drilling protocols: Group A (Test, n = 24), undersized preparation; Group B (Control, n = 24), non-undersized preparation. The animals were euthanatized to obtain 5 and 10 weeks of implantation time. Removal torque (RTQ) was measured on 12 implants of each group and the peri-implant bone was µ-CT scanned. Bone volume density (BV/TV) was calculated in pre-determined cylindrical volumes, up to 1.5 mm from implant surface. Non-decalcified histology was prepared on the remaining 12 implants from each group, where total bone-to-implant contact (totBIC) and newly-formed BIC (newBIC) was measured. Bone Area Fraction Occupancy (BAFO) was determined in pre-determined areas up to 1.5 mm from implant surface. Paired sample t test or Wilcoxon signed-rank test was used to investigate differences between the groups. Results: Group A presented significantly increased RTQ value at 5 weeks, while no difference was observed at 10 weeks. Group B presented increased BV/TV value at 5 weeks. Both groups showed comparable values for totBIC at both time-points. However, Group A presented significantly lower newBIC at 5 weeks. Higher BAFO was observed in Group B at 5 weeks. Conclusions: Implants inserted into undersized sites has an increased biomechanical performance, but provoked major remodeling of the cortical bone during the early healing period compared to non-undersized preparations. After 10 weeks, no difference was observed.
AB - Objective: The aim of this study was to investigate the extent of cortical bone remodeling between two different drilling protocols by means of histomorphometric, µ-CT, and biomechanical analyses. Material and methods: A total of 48 implants were inserted into the mandible of six sheep following two drilling protocols: Group A (Test, n = 24), undersized preparation; Group B (Control, n = 24), non-undersized preparation. The animals were euthanatized to obtain 5 and 10 weeks of implantation time. Removal torque (RTQ) was measured on 12 implants of each group and the peri-implant bone was µ-CT scanned. Bone volume density (BV/TV) was calculated in pre-determined cylindrical volumes, up to 1.5 mm from implant surface. Non-decalcified histology was prepared on the remaining 12 implants from each group, where total bone-to-implant contact (totBIC) and newly-formed BIC (newBIC) was measured. Bone Area Fraction Occupancy (BAFO) was determined in pre-determined areas up to 1.5 mm from implant surface. Paired sample t test or Wilcoxon signed-rank test was used to investigate differences between the groups. Results: Group A presented significantly increased RTQ value at 5 weeks, while no difference was observed at 10 weeks. Group B presented increased BV/TV value at 5 weeks. Both groups showed comparable values for totBIC at both time-points. However, Group A presented significantly lower newBIC at 5 weeks. Higher BAFO was observed in Group B at 5 weeks. Conclusions: Implants inserted into undersized sites has an increased biomechanical performance, but provoked major remodeling of the cortical bone during the early healing period compared to non-undersized preparations. After 10 weeks, no difference was observed.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85047625444&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85047625444&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1111/clr.13262
DO - 10.1111/clr.13262
M3 - Article
C2 - 29781224
AN - SCOPUS:85047625444
VL - 29
SP - 707
EP - 715
JO - Clinical Oral Implants Research
JF - Clinical Oral Implants Research
SN - 0905-7161
IS - 7
ER -