Srivastava Shitij, Srivastava Shubham K, Shekhar Abhinav, Chaturvedi Anshuman, Sarkar Debajyoti
Department of Prosthodontics, Sardar Patel Post Graduate Institute of Dental and Medical Sciences, Lucknow, IND.
Cureus. 2025 May 24;17(5):e84730. doi: 10.7759/cureus.84730. eCollection 2025 May.
Aim and objectives In this study, we aimed to compare the impacts of slow-speed (50 rpm) drilling without irrigation and medium-speed (300 rpm) drilling without irrigation with high-speed (800 rpm) drilling with irrigation on marginal bone loss around the dental implant. Material and methods This study was conducted and reported following the CONSORT (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials) guidelines. This randomized controlled trial utilized a within-subjects design, wherein each participant received three implants in the unilateral maxillary posterior region. A minimum of 24 patients (72 implants, three per patient) was proposed to ensure adequate statistical power and equal allocation across all intervention arms. Each implant site was prepared using a distinct drilling protocol: slow-speed (50 rpm, without irrigation), medium-speed (300 rpm, without irrigation), and high-speed (800 rpm, with irrigation). Randomization of implant sites was performed using the Research Randomizer website to reduce bias. The 50- and 300-rpm sites were designated as the case group, while the 800-rpm site served as the control. All procedures followed a standardized two-stage surgical protocol, with implants placed 1 mm subcrestally and flaps closed using 3-0 silk sutures. Drilling torque was maintained at 45 Ncm. Periapical radiographs were obtained immediately postoperatively and at six months using standardized settings (70 kV, 8 mA, 0.2 seconds, 30 cm of focus distance) with a customized XCP positioning system. Marginal bone levels were measured on mesial and distal aspects using ImageJ software. A single-blind design was implemented to ensure that the radiologist assessing bone loss was unaware of the group allocations. Results The study compared the marginal bone loss among two case groups and a control group based on drilling speeds: 50 rpm without irrigation (subgroup A), 300 rpm without irrigation (subgroup B), and 800 rpm with irrigation (group C), respectively. Mesial and distal bone loss was significantly lower in subgroup A (mesial: 0.383 ± 0.018 mm; distal: 0.403 ± 0.018 mm) compared to subgroup B (mesial: 0.434 ± 0.014 mm; distal: 0.440 ± 0.014 mm) and group C (mesial: 0.477 ± 0.013 mm; distal: 0.491 ± 0.013 mm). Statistical analysis revealed significant differences between groups (ANOVA: p < 0.001). Pairwise comparisons confirmed the order of marginal bone loss as group C > subgroup B > subgroup A. Conclusion The study demonstrated that slow-speed drilling without irrigation resulted in significantly lower marginal bone loss compared to medium-speed drilling without irrigation and high-speed drilling with irrigation. These findings suggest that slow-speed drilling may offer a clinically advantageous alternative for implant site preparation, promoting better osseointegration and reducing the risk of implant failure.
目的和目标 在本研究中,我们旨在比较低速(50转/分钟)无冲洗钻孔、中速(300转/分钟)无冲洗钻孔与高速(800转/分钟)有冲洗钻孔对牙种植体周围边缘骨丢失的影响。
材料和方法 本研究按照CONSORT(试验报告统一标准)指南进行并报告。这项随机对照试验采用受试者内设计,其中每位参与者在单侧上颌后牙区植入三枚种植体。建议至少纳入24例患者(72枚种植体,每位患者3枚),以确保有足够的统计效力并在所有干预组间实现均衡分配。每个种植体植入部位采用不同的钻孔方案进行制备:低速(50转/分钟,无冲洗)、中速(300转/分钟,无冲洗)和高速(800转/分钟,有冲洗)。使用Research Randomizer网站对种植体植入部位进行随机化,以减少偏倚。50转/分钟和300转/分钟的部位被指定为病例组,而800转/分钟的部位作为对照组。所有操作均遵循标准化的两阶段手术方案,种植体植入于牙槽嵴顶下方1毫米处,使用3-0丝线缝合关闭创口。钻孔扭矩维持在45牛顿厘米。术后即刻以及术后6个月,使用定制的XCP定位系统,在标准化参数(70千伏、8毫安秒、0.2秒、焦-片距30厘米)下拍摄根尖片。使用ImageJ软件在近中和远中面测量边缘骨水平。采用单盲设计,以确保评估骨丢失的放射科医生不知道分组情况。
结果 本研究比较了基于钻孔速度的两个病例组和一个对照组之间的边缘骨丢失情况:分别为无冲洗的50转/分钟(A亚组)、无冲洗的300转/分钟(B亚组)和有冲洗的800转/分钟(C组)。与B亚组(近中:0.434±0.014毫米;远中:0.440±0.014毫米)和C组(近中:0.477±0.013毫米;远中:0.491±0.013毫米)相比,A亚组的近中和远中骨丢失明显更低(近中:0.383±0.018毫米;远中:0.403±0.018毫米)。统计分析显示组间存在显著差异(方差分析:p<0.001)。两两比较证实边缘骨丢失顺序为C组>B亚组>A亚组。
结论 该研究表明,与无冲洗的中速钻孔和有冲洗的高速钻孔相比,无冲洗的低速钻孔导致的边缘骨丢失明显更低。这些发现表明,低速钻孔可能为种植体植入部位制备提供一种具有临床优势的替代方法,促进更好的骨结合并降低种植体失败的风险。