Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Faculty of Dental Medicine for Girls, Al Azhar University, 11727 Yusuf Abas Street, Nasr City, Cairo, Egypt.
Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Collage of Dentistry, Qassim University, Postal Box 1162, Qassim Region, Al-Mulida, North of Prince Nayef bin Abdulaziz International Airport, Saudi Arabia; Faculty of Dental Medicine for Girls, Al Azhar University, 11727 Yusuf Abas Street, Nasr City, Cairo, Egypt.
J Craniomaxillofac Surg. 2020 Jul;48(7):645-652. doi: 10.1016/j.jcms.2020.05.002. Epub 2020 May 11.
This study compared piezoelectric (PE) and conventional drills (CD) for maxillary aesthetic zone implant insertion.
This was a prospective split-mouth study. Implants were divided into two groups. Beds were prepared with CDs in group I and PE in group II. The implant stability quotient (ISQ) of the mechanical implant stability (MIS) was measured intraoperatively. The ISQ of the biological implant stability (BIS) was recorded at postoperative second and fourth months. Marginal bone loss (MBL) and bone density (BMD) were measured in the first and second years after prosthetic loading. The osteotomy time was also documented for both techniques. P values <0.05 were considered significant.
Sixty implants in 30 patients were included. PE provided a significantly higher ISQ. All values were above 70 throughout the follow-up period. The mean of the ISQ for MIS was 63.78 ± 1.03 and 73.89 ± 1.05 in group I and group II, respectively (p = 0.003). PE needed significantly longer osteotomy time with a mean of 11.99 ± 0.839 min. The BIS quality had high stability in group II and medium stability in group I throughout the study period. Its values decreased in both groups. Group II had a lesser percentage of decrease. However, it was significant only at time intervals between intraoperative and two months' postoperative (p = 0.004). MBL and BMD demonstrated insignificant results.
The implant site preparation with PE devices should be preferred to CDs whenever possible, because they seem to enhance implant stability and osseointegration, especially at the initial stages of healing.
本研究比较了压电（PE）和传统钻（CD）在上颌美学区植入物植入中的应用。
这是一项前瞻性的分口研究。将植入物分为两组。在第 I 组中使用 CD 制备床，在第 II 组中使用 PE 制备床。术中测量机械植入稳定性（MIS）的种植体稳定性指数（ISQ）。术后第 2 和第 4 个月记录生物植入稳定性（BIS）的 ISQ。在修复体加载后的第 1 和第 2 年测量边缘骨吸收（MBL）和骨密度（BMD）。还记录了两种技术的骨切开时间。P 值<0.05 被认为具有统计学意义。
30 名患者的 60 个种植体被纳入研究。PE 提供了更高的 ISQ。整个随访期间，所有值均高于 70。MIS 的 ISQ 平均值分别为第 I 组和第 II 组的 63.78±1.03 和 73.89±1.05（p=0.003）。PE 的骨切开时间明显更长，平均为 11.99±0.839 分钟。在整个研究期间，BIS 质量在第 II 组中具有较高的稳定性，在第 I 组中具有中等稳定性。两组的 BIS 值均有所下降。第 II 组的下降百分比较小。然而，仅在术中至术后 2 个月的时间间隔内有统计学意义（p=0.004）。MBL 和 BMD 结果无统计学意义。
在可能的情况下，应优先选择 PE 设备进行种植体部位准备，因为它们似乎可以增强种植体稳定性和骨整合，特别是在愈合的初始阶段。
