Comparison of One-Drill Protocol to Sequential Drilling In Vitro and In Vivo
This study compares the heat generated during bone drilling using different protocols and implant systems, first in vitro and then in vivo with an animal model. In the experimental phase, thermal data were collected using an infrared camera while preparing implant beds in bone similes. The heat gene...
Saved in:
| Main Authors: | , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
MDPI AG
2025-01-01
|
| Series: | Bioengineering |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://www.mdpi.com/2306-5354/12/1/51 |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| _version_ | 1832589065283698688 |
|---|---|
| author | Sihana Rugova Marcus Abboud |
| author_facet | Sihana Rugova Marcus Abboud |
| author_sort | Sihana Rugova |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | This study compares the heat generated during bone drilling using different protocols and implant systems, first in vitro and then in vivo with an animal model. In the experimental phase, thermal data were collected using an infrared camera while preparing implant beds in bone similes. The heat generated by a one-drill protocol with a new-generation drill bit and the Straumann BLT sequential drilling protocol was evaluated. The experimental study was then replicated in an animal model to assess the impact of these protocols on early osseointegration, measured by bone-to-implant contact (BIC) at three weeks post-surgery for Straumann BLT SLActive and Medentika Quattrocone implants. The results showed the BLT sequential protocol generated significantly more heat during drilling in bone similes compared to the new-generation drill bit. In the animal model, a histological analysis revealed a trend favoring shorter drilling protocols, with reduced drilling times and a potential advantage for osseointegration, though the BIC differences were not statistically significant. These findings suggest that minimizing the number of drilling steps and thermal stress may enhance osseointegration more effectively than advanced implant surface treatments. This aligns with emerging views on the importance of optimized drilling protocols and designs to reduce heat generation and better preserve surrounding bone structure. |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj-art-a51b4625a4034da08690491fb21aa4dd |
| institution | Kabale University |
| issn | 2306-5354 |
| language | English |
| publishDate | 2025-01-01 |
| publisher | MDPI AG |
| record_format | Article |
| series | Bioengineering |
| spelling | doaj-art-a51b4625a4034da08690491fb21aa4dd2025-01-24T13:23:05ZengMDPI AGBioengineering2306-53542025-01-011215110.3390/bioengineering12010051Comparison of One-Drill Protocol to Sequential Drilling In Vitro and In VivoSihana Rugova0Marcus Abboud1Department of Oral Biology and Pathology, Stony Brook University, Stony Brook, NY 11794, USASchool of Engineering, Stony Brook University, Stony Brook, NY 11794, USAThis study compares the heat generated during bone drilling using different protocols and implant systems, first in vitro and then in vivo with an animal model. In the experimental phase, thermal data were collected using an infrared camera while preparing implant beds in bone similes. The heat generated by a one-drill protocol with a new-generation drill bit and the Straumann BLT sequential drilling protocol was evaluated. The experimental study was then replicated in an animal model to assess the impact of these protocols on early osseointegration, measured by bone-to-implant contact (BIC) at three weeks post-surgery for Straumann BLT SLActive and Medentika Quattrocone implants. The results showed the BLT sequential protocol generated significantly more heat during drilling in bone similes compared to the new-generation drill bit. In the animal model, a histological analysis revealed a trend favoring shorter drilling protocols, with reduced drilling times and a potential advantage for osseointegration, though the BIC differences were not statistically significant. These findings suggest that minimizing the number of drilling steps and thermal stress may enhance osseointegration more effectively than advanced implant surface treatments. This aligns with emerging views on the importance of optimized drilling protocols and designs to reduce heat generation and better preserve surrounding bone structure.https://www.mdpi.com/2306-5354/12/1/51dental implantstraumannBLTSLActiveimplant drillsimplant bed preparation |
| spellingShingle | Sihana Rugova Marcus Abboud Comparison of One-Drill Protocol to Sequential Drilling In Vitro and In Vivo Bioengineering dental implant straumann BLT SLActive implant drills implant bed preparation |
| title | Comparison of One-Drill Protocol to Sequential Drilling In Vitro and In Vivo |
| title_full | Comparison of One-Drill Protocol to Sequential Drilling In Vitro and In Vivo |
| title_fullStr | Comparison of One-Drill Protocol to Sequential Drilling In Vitro and In Vivo |
| title_full_unstemmed | Comparison of One-Drill Protocol to Sequential Drilling In Vitro and In Vivo |
| title_short | Comparison of One-Drill Protocol to Sequential Drilling In Vitro and In Vivo |
| title_sort | comparison of one drill protocol to sequential drilling in vitro and in vivo |
| topic | dental implant straumann BLT SLActive implant drills implant bed preparation |
| url | https://www.mdpi.com/2306-5354/12/1/51 |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT sihanarugova comparisonofonedrillprotocoltosequentialdrillinginvitroandinvivo AT marcusabboud comparisonofonedrillprotocoltosequentialdrillinginvitroandinvivo |