Pius Geo, Saranya S K, Kumar Aswini, Mathew Anil, Janakiram Chandrashekar, Gowd Siddarammana G, Balachandran Parvathy
Amrita School of Dentistry, Amrita Vishwa Vidyapeetham, Kochi, 682041, India.
Amrita Centre for Nanosciences and Molecular Medicine, Amrita Vishwa Vidyapeetham, India.
J Oral Biol Craniofac Res. 2022 Nov-Dec;12(6):885-889. doi: 10.1016/j.jobcr.2022.08.026. Epub 2022 Sep 29.
The purpose of this study was to compare the implant stability and bone implant contact obtained using bone expanders to conventional osteotomy. Materials and methods: In this multiphasic study, the first phase was conducted on ex vivo porcine models to standardize the procedure and to check its feasibility. The second phase was conducted as human clinical trial.
A total of 10 implants were placed in the premolar region on five exvivo porcine models in randomized sequence using conventional osteotomy drills and bone expanders/screw spreaders. Implant stability was measured using resonance frequency analyser on the day of implant placement. Radiological analysis was done using micro-CT in two sectional block specimens randomly selected from each study groups.
Implants were placed on ten patients fulfilling the inclusion criteria. Implants were placed after randomizing the osteotomy sites. Bone expanders were used in 5 sites and conventional osteotomy technique was used in 5 other sites. Implant stability was measured on the day of implant placement and after three months in pre-loaded state using resonance frequency analyser.
: Average implant stability quotient for bone expanders were 71.2% ± 3.8% and 66.4% ± 1.3% for conventional osteotomy respectively. Bone to implant contact ratio values for bone expanders were 84.7% ± 7.9% and conventional osteotomy drills were 66.3% ± 13.6%. : Average primary stability at the day of surgery was 71.4 ± 1.3 for bone expanders and 65.6 ± 2.4 for conventional osteotomy drills. After three months (per-loaded state), average primary stability of bone expanders were 74.8 ± 1.1 and conventional osteotomy drills were 71.8 ± 2.5. Conclusion: The bone expanders used when indicated can enhance implant stability and bone to implant contact. Thus osteotomy by bone expanders may be suggested as a promising method especially in compromised bone.
本研究旨在比较使用骨扩张器与传统截骨术所获得的种植体稳定性和骨-种植体接触情况。材料与方法：在这项多阶段研究中，第一阶段在离体猪模型上进行，以规范手术过程并检验其可行性。第二阶段作为人体临床试验进行。
在五个离体猪模型的前磨牙区域，使用传统截骨钻和骨扩张器/螺钉撑开器以随机顺序植入总共10颗种植体。在种植体植入当天使用共振频率分析仪测量种植体稳定性。对从每个研究组中随机选取的两个切片块状标本使用微型计算机断层扫描进行放射学分析。
对十名符合纳入标准的患者植入种植体。在将截骨部位随机化后植入种植体。在5个部位使用骨扩张器，在另外5个部位使用传统截骨技术。在种植体植入当天以及三个月后处于预加载状态时，使用共振频率分析仪测量种植体稳定性。
骨扩张器的平均种植体稳定性商数分别为71.2%±3.8%，传统截骨术为66.4%±1.3%。骨扩张器的骨-种植体接触率值为84.7%±7.9%，传统截骨钻为66.3%±13.6%。手术当天骨扩张器的平均初始稳定性为71.4±1.3，传统截骨钻为65.6±2.4。三个月后（预加载状态），骨扩张器的平均初始稳定性为74.8±1.1，传统截骨钻为71.8±2.5。结论：在有指征时使用骨扩张器可提高种植体稳定性和骨-种植体接触。因此，骨扩张器截骨术可能是一种有前景的方法，尤其是在骨质不佳的情况下。
