Intraosseous Temperature Change during Installation of Dental Implants with Two Different Surfaces and Different Drilling Protocols: An In Vivo Study in Sheep.

BACKGROUND

The intraosseous temperature during implant installation has never been evaluated in an in vivo controlled setup. The aims were to investigate the influence of a drilling protocol and implant surface on the intraosseous temperature during implant installation, to evaluate the influence of temperature increase on osseointegration and to calculate the heat distribution in cortical bone.

METHODS

Forty Brånemark implants were installed into the metatarsal bone of Finnish Dorset crossbred sheep according to two different drilling protocols (undersized/non-undersized) and two surfaces (moderately rough/turned). The intraosseous temperature was recorded, and Finite Element Model (FEM) was generated to understand the thermal behavior. Non-decalcified histology was carried out after five weeks of healing. The following osseointegration parameters were calculated: Bone-to-implant contact (BIC), Bone Area Fraction Occupancy (BAFO), and Bone Area Fraction Occupancy up to 1.5 mm (BA1.5). A multiple regression model was used to identify the influencing variables on the histomorphometric parameters.

RESULTS

The temperature was affected by the drilling protocol, while no influence was demonstrated by the implant surface. BIC was positively influenced by the undersized drilling protocol and rough surface, BAFO was negatively influenced by the temperature rise, and BA1.5 was negatively influenced by the undersized drilling protocol. FEM showed that the temperature at the implant interface might exceed the limit for bone necrosis.

CONCLUSION

The intraosseous temperature is greatly increased by an undersized drilling protocol but not from the implant surface. The temperature increase negatively affects the bone healing in the proximity of the implant. The undersized drilling protocol for Brånemark implant systems increases the amount of bone at the interface, but it negatively impacts the bone far from the implant.