Gedik Betul, Keskin Yalcin Basak, Etik Eda, Cankaya Abdulkadir Burak, Erdem Mehmet Ali
Faculty of Dentistry Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Istanbul University, Prof. Dr. Cavit Orhan Tutengil Street No:4, Vezneciler Fatih , Istanbul, Turkey.
BMC Oral Health. 2025 Sep 26;25(1):1453. doi: 10.1186/s12903-025-06860-z.
The aim of this study was to compare the thermal effects and drilling efficiency of four different implant osteotomy systems -conventional stainless steel drills (CS), velodrills (VD), ceramic drills (CD), and bone-enhancing drills (BE)- under standardized experimental conditions.
A total of 160 osteotomies were performed on fresh bovine rib bone blocks using four different drill systems. Each group included 40 repetitions. A standardized protocol was applied, including constant irrigation (50 ml/min), drilling speed (800 rpm), and axial load (2 kg). Each drill was used for the entire 40 repetitions per system. However, all drills were inspected before and after the experiments to ensure no visible damage, and the performance decline was analyzed over time. Temperature changes on the bone surface were recorded using a 14-bit digital infrared thermal camera. Drilling time was measured for each osteotomy. Statistical analysis was conducted using Dunn’s multiple comparisons test to evaluate differences between groups.
The ceramic drill group (CD) exhibited the highest mean temperature (24.82 ± 2.69 °C) and the longest mean drilling time (17.07 ± 6.82 s). The conventional stainless steel drill (CS), velodrill (VD), and bone-enhancing drill (BE) systems demonstrated significantly shorter drilling times and lower temperature values. Statistically significant differences in temperature and drilling time were observed between CD and other systems ( < 0.0001). While all systems remained below the critical thermal threshold for bone necrosis, ceramic drills were significantly associated with greater thermal load and procedural duration ( < 0.0001).
Under standardized experimental conditions, all drill systems remained within safe thermal limits. However, ceramic drills generated more heat and required significantly longer drilling times compared to other systems. Conventional stainless steel and velodrill systems demonstrated promising thermal control and efficiency in this in vitro setting, which may inform clinical decisions. However, further validation including drill wear rate and biological response is necessary before clinical endorsement.
本研究的目的是在标准化实验条件下,比较四种不同种植体截骨系统——传统不锈钢钻(CS)、快速钻(VD)、陶瓷钻(CD)和骨增强钻(BE)——的热效应和钻孔效率。
使用四种不同的钻系统在新鲜牛肋骨块上共进行160次截骨术。每组包括40次重复。应用标准化方案,包括持续冲洗(50毫升/分钟)、钻孔速度(800转/分钟)和轴向载荷(2千克)。每个系统的整个40次重复均使用同一钻头。然而,所有钻头在实验前后都进行了检查,以确保无明显损坏,并随时间分析性能下降情况。使用14位数字红外热像仪记录骨表面的温度变化。测量每次截骨术的钻孔时间。使用邓恩多重比较检验进行统计分析,以评估组间差异。
陶瓷钻组(CD)的平均温度最高(24.82±2.69℃),平均钻孔时间最长(17.07±6.82秒)。传统不锈钢钻(CS)、快速钻(VD)和骨增强钻(BE)系统的钻孔时间明显更短,温度值更低。CD与其他系统之间在温度和钻孔时间上存在统计学显著差异(<0.0001)。虽然所有系统均保持在骨坏死的临界热阈值以下,但陶瓷钻与更大的热负荷和手术持续时间显著相关(<0.0001)。
在标准化实验条件下,所有钻系统均保持在安全热限内。然而,与其他系统相比,陶瓷钻产生的热量更多,钻孔时间明显更长。传统不锈钢钻和快速钻系统在这种体外环境中表现出良好的热控制和效率,这可能为临床决策提供参考。然而,在临床认可之前,需要进一步验证,包括钻头磨损率和生物学反应。