Li W T, Li P, Piao M Z, Zhang F, DI J
Second Clinical Division, Peking University School and Hospital of Stomatology & National Clinical Research Center for Oral Diseases & National Engineering Laboratory for Digital and Material Technology of Stomatology & Beijing Key Laboratory of Digital Stomatology, Beijing 100101, China.
Beijing Da Xue Xue Bao Yi Xue Ban. 2020 Feb 18;52(1):103-106. doi: 10.19723/j.issn.1671-167X.2020.01.016.
To compare the volume of autogenous bone particles harvested utilizing different techniques and various implant systems during implant surgery, and to determine the advantageous method to collect autogenous bone particles.
Homogeneous epoxy resin simulated jaw bone model was enrolled. Bicon, Bego implant systems and Straumann tissue level implant systems were utilized. The two techniques were investigated. One method was low-speed drilling (50 r/min) without water irrigating, and the other one was drilling with cold water irrigating to the ideal depth, then closing the water and drilling out with low speed (50 r/min). The bone particles in the drill groove and implant beds were collected. The volumes of the bone harvested were compared between the different techniques and also among the three implant systems, then they were compared with the volume of the bone harvested by the special bone drill. The sample size of each sub-group was 10. The bone particles were weighed by electronic balance after drying.
The harvested bone volume between the latch reamers and hand reamers of Bicon system with the first method was not significantly different. When the same size implant bed was prepared, the volume of the bone particles produced during the implant surgery with low-speed drill without water was significantly higher than that with the other method no matter Bicon [3.5 mm×10 mm hole for example (28.42±6.04) mg vs. (6.30±2.51) mg, P<0.001] or Bego system [2.8 mm×10 mm hole for example (28.95±5.39) mg vs. (4.61±3.39) mg, P<0.001] was used, and the ratio of bone volume between the first method and the second one was approximately 3.3 to 7.0 times. When using the second method to prepare the similar size implant bed, the bone volume was not significant different among Bicon, Bego and Straumann implant systems [Bicon (9.90±3.42) mg, Bego (8.70±4.09) mg, and Straumann (10.56±5.66) mg, P=0.69]. When preparing a 5 mm-diameter-10 mm-length hole with Bicon implant system and a 4.7 mm-diameter-10 mm-length with Bego implant system, the bone quantity harvested from each group was less than that harvested by special bone drill from Neo Biotech [Bicon (82.54±12.26) mg, Bego (85.07±12.64) mg vs. Neo Biotech (96.78±13.19) mg, P<0.05].
More autogenous bone can be harvested from implant beds by preparing with low-speed rolling without water than the method with water irrigation. When utilizing the same preparing method, the implant system has no impact on the volume of the bone harvested.
比较种植手术中使用不同技术和各种种植系统采集的自体骨颗粒体积，确定采集自体骨颗粒的有利方法。
纳入均质环氧树脂模拟颌骨模型。使用Bicon、Bego种植系统和Straumann组织水平种植系统。研究两种技术。一种方法是无水低速钻孔（50转/分钟），另一种方法是用冷水冲洗至理想深度，然后关闭水源并低速（50转/分钟）钻出。收集钻孔槽和种植窝中的骨颗粒。比较不同技术之间以及三种种植系统之间采集的骨体积，然后将其与专用骨钻采集的骨体积进行比较。每个亚组的样本量为10。干燥后用电子天平称量骨颗粒。
第一种方法下，Bicon系统的锁扣扩孔钻和手动扩孔钻采集的骨体积无显著差异。制备相同尺寸的种植窝时，无论使用Bicon[例如3.5毫米×10毫米的孔（28.42±6.04）毫克对（6.30±2.51）毫克，P<0.001]还是Bego系统[例如2.8毫米×10毫米的孔（28.95±5.39）毫克对（4.61±3.39）毫克，P<0.001]，无水低速钻孔种植手术中产生的骨颗粒体积均显著高于另一种方法，第一种方法与第二种方法的骨体积比约为3.3至7.0倍。使用第二种方法制备相似尺寸的种植窝时，Bicon、Bego和Straumann种植系统之间的骨体积无显著差异[Bicon（9.90±3.42）毫克，Bego（8.70±4.09）毫克，Straumann（10.56±5.66）毫克，P = 0.69]。使用Bicon种植系统制备直径5毫米、长度10毫米的孔以及使用Bego种植系统制备直径4.7毫米、长度10毫米的孔时，每组采集的骨量均少于Neo Biotech专用骨钻采集的骨量[Bicon（82.54±12.26）毫克，Bego（85.07±12.64）毫克对Neo Biotech（96.78±13.19）毫克，P<0.05]。
无水低速滚动制备种植窝比用水冲洗法能从种植窝中采集到更多的自体骨。使用相同的制备方法时，种植系统对采集的骨体积无影响。
