Comparative Evaluation of Marginal Bone Levels, ISQ Trends, and Implant Survival Rates Between Conventional Drilling and Osteotome Technique Using Implants of Varied Lengths: A Split-Mouth Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial.

PURPOSE

To assess marginal bone loss (MBL) and implant stability when implant site preparation is performed with conventional drilling and the osteotome technique in the posterior maxilla.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

In total, 30 patients (mean age: 46.97 + 7.48 years) receiving 60 implants were enrolled in this study. In each patient, implant site preparation was done using either conventional drilling (conventional group; n = 30) or the osteotome technique (osteotome group; n = 30). The implant sites were further divided into groups based on the implant length used (implant length < 10 mm, implant length ≥ 10 mm). Marginal bone levels and implant stability quotient (ISQ) values were evaluated at the time of crown insertion and 1 year later. Independent t test and paired t test were used for intergroup and intragroup comparison, respectively.

RESULTS

The osteotome group showed statistically significant higher initial ISQ (ISQi) and final ISQ (ISQf) values (ISQi: 61 ± 3.6; ISQf: 64.08 ± 3.7) compared to the conventional group (ISQi: 58.01 ± 4.6; ISQf: 61.32 ± 4.8). Statistically significant higher mean MBL was noted in the conventional group (-0.33 ± 0.12 mm) compared to the osteotome group (-0.26 ± 0.10 mm). Higher MBL was noted in the osteotome group (-0.32 ± 0.09 mm) compared to the conventional group (-0.30 ± 0.14 mm) for implants shorter than 10 mm. For implants ≥ 10 mm in length, significantly higher MBL was noted in the conventional group (-0.37 ± 0.09 mm) compared to the osteotome group (-0.19 ± .06 mm).

CONCLUSIONS

Osteotome technique could be used as an alternative to conventional drilling, especially when implants longer than 10 mm are planned in the posterior maxilla.