Abstract
Objectives
Dental implant failure and insufficient osseointegration are proven results of mechanical and thermal damage during the surgery process. We herein performed a comparative study of a less invasive single-step drilling preparation protocol and a conventional multiple drilling sequence. Accuracy of drilling holes was precisely analyzed and the influence of different levels of expertise of the handlers and additional use of drill template guidance was evaluated.
Material and methods
Six experimental groups, deployed in an osseous study model, were representing template-guided and freehanded drilling actions in a stepwise drilling procedure in comparison to a single-drill protocol. Each experimental condition was studied by the drilling actions of respectively three persons without surgical knowledge as well as three highly experienced oral surgeons. Drilling actions were performed and diameters were recorded with a precision measuring instrument.
Results
Less experienced operators were able to significantly increase the drilling accuracy using a guiding template, especially when multi-step preparations are performed. Improved accuracy without template guidance was observed when experienced operators were executing single-step versus multi-step technique.
Conclusion
Single-step drilling protocols have shown to produce more accurate results than multi-step procedures. The outcome of any protocol can be further improved by use of guiding templates. Operator experience can be a contributing factor.
Clinical relevance
Single-step preparations are less invasive and are promoting osseointegration. Even highly experienced surgeons are achieving higher levels of accuracy by combining this technique with template guidance. Hereby template guidance enables a reduction of hands-on time and side effects during surgery and lead to a more predictable clinical diameter.
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
Introduction
Various experimental studies have shown that an atraumatical surgical procedure during implant site preparation is a determinating factor to achieve functionally correct and stable dental implants [1]. A combination of mechanical and thermal damage during the surgery process can lead to bone necrosis and insufficient osseointegration. These parameters are the main causes for implant failure [2,3,4].
Conventional preparations of implant sites are produced by using at least three drilling steps, depending on the diameter of the desired implant. In consideration of potentially harmful thermal effects with possible impairment of subsequent osseointegration, the previous doctrines of implant dentistry recommend a protocol of performing small incremental increases of drill holes diameters [2, 4, 5]. The theoretical background of this technique is based on the model that heat and friction generated in bone contact zones during the drilling process is directly correlated to the amount of bone material removed. Accordingly, the quantity of bone chips is correlated to the diameter of the drill [4]. This traditional approach is not necessarily controversial to findings from other authors.
The accepted opinion is stating that temperature development and its influence on osseointegration is proportional to the time of the bone being exposed to friction forces generated during the drilling activity [6,7,8,9]. Multiple studies demonstrate that bone damage caused by heat exposure increases with extended drilling time. While use of a stepwise drilling protocol promises a prolongation of hands-on time and lessens the damaging effect on bone structure [10,11,12]. Other current findings indicate an excellent success rate of site preparations without thermal trauma, produced by simplified osteotomy using a single-drilling step [13, 14]. Whereas investigations of potential thermal damage, using different preparation protocols, have already been performed, the present study takes a view at the effects on the actual accuracy of the drilling hole.
The accuracy evaluations in the present work were done with special reference to a reduction of drilling steps to just one. The aim was to investigate additional potential inaccuracies caused by simplified protocols. A second approach was to find out, if these alterations could be balanced with help of guided surgery. The use of drilling templates for site preparations is designed to provide greater control and a reduction of risks and failure in implant surgery [15,16,17]. From the literature, it is known that single-drill techniques are not related to an increase in bone temperature during the surgery [18]. This observation applies to protocols performed with surgical template as well as without its application. Successful implantation in many studies is usually observed by resonance frequency analysis [19] or insertion torques of the implants [20]. Data in this way is collected indirectly after implantation and is not depicting the quality of the drill hole itself. The aim of the present study is to directly investigate the early events of implantation, the drilling procedure.
In the present study, results of a single-step drilling preparation protocol are compared to a multiple drilling sequence. The aim was to contrast different techniques and compare template-guided surgery to free manual preparation. The study separately evaluates these accuracies for different levels of expertise of the handlers, performing the drilling. The dental community witnesses a rapid increase in the number of general practioners involved in implant placement, lessening the quota of specialists. The practioner and his or her level of expertise are crucial factors for the accuracy and the outcome of dental implants [21]. Therefore, the further aim of the study was to add that human factor to the technical and applicatory evaluation. These parameters are making it a combined investigation of the influence of guiding templates on different protocols, as well as levels of expertise of the operators.
Material and methods
Drilling equipment and comparative drilling protocols of implant site preparation
An electric drilling instrument with continuous saline cooling (Elcomed, W&H, Bürmoos, Austria) was used for experimental implant site preparation in the present porcine osseous study. Drilling techniques for preparation of monocortical implant anchorage were carried out according to the surgical protocol suggested by the drill manufacturer (Bego, Bremen, Germany).
In this comparative study, two different types of implant site preparations were performed and compared. First, a single-drill preparation was performed, consisting of a priming puncheon action in order to mark the drill holes placement and allowing guidance of the referring single drill used in this procedure. Hereby, a single drill of 3.25 mm, representing the final size of diameter, was used to complete the preparation. The second preparation technique, named multi-step technique, uses a panel of drills in ascending sizes, starting with a diameter of 1.60 mm and continuing to 2.50, 2.80, and 3.25 mm, producing an incrementally widened drill hole. Both techniques lead to a final drill hole diameter of 3.25 mm, and both were applied to freehanded as well as template-guided drilling operation.
Template-guided drilling was carried out using polyoxymethylene (POM) gauges with embedded guiding sleeves produced with help of computer-aided design and manufacturing (CADCAM), (Datron D5, Darmstadt, Germany). Into these guiding sleeves, spoons with a precise drilling channel could be clamped with a twisting move. This way, a stable positioning was guaranteed. The load-bearing structure of the gauge itself was anchored with screws to the jawbone for maximum resistance against distortion (Fig. 1). Drills were changed after every three drills to avoid possible inaccuracies in diameter due to drill wear.
Experimental osseous model
In order to achieve true-to-life experimental conditions, the drilling actions were carried out in cadaveric porcine mandibles, derived from subjects 3 years of age that underwent second dentition. A total of 72 mandibles were used and grouped. Every jawbone underwent a total of 5 implant site preparations. Eight experimental groups were arranged representing template-guided and freehanded drilling actions, each separated in groups for usage of respectively three persons without surgical knowledge and poor operating experience in mechanical drilling on one side against groups of three highly experienced oral and maxillofacial surgeons on the other. All of these specified experimental configurations were carried out with single-drill preparation as well as multi-step preparation. Each of these eight experimental groups comprised three operators. Results were obtained for 150 drilling actions per operator and a 900 drilling actions could be analyzed.
Careful analysis of three-dimensional radiographic examination of the porcine mandible jawbones also provided information about the height and width of the animal bone, degree of corticalization, density of mineralization and possible cancellous bone in the relevant areas. Therefore, jawbones were analyzed in conebeam computer tomography (CBCT) in the Clinic for Cranio-Maxillo-Facial Surgery of the Hanover Medical School (PaX–Zenith 3D, Republic of Korea). Bone quality of the specimen was classified as type D2.
Diameter measurement procedure
Diameter of each drilling hole was recorded with a precision measuring instrument according to the instructions for use (Zentimess, Mahr, Göttingen, Germany) at drill hole depths of 2, 4, and 6 mm. Data were taken in a blinded trial and measurements were taken by an independent person, not involved in the drilling experiments.
Measurement with the Zentimess instrument was taken by measuring probes. The probe design features spring-loaded half-shells that are splitted and expands by a protruding and advancing pin with a precision-lapped taper (Fig. 2). The resulting lateral expansion movement of the half-shells was directly visible on the measuring scale of the Zentimess instrument, graduated in 0.01-mm intervals with a measurement range of ± 0.25 mm and a gauging force of 1 N. Free stroke of the instrument amounts 2.5 mm. The manufacturer quantifies the deviation of linearity of ≤ 2% measuring ranges with 0.47–1.55 mm and ≤ 1% measuring ranges with 1.5–18.6 mm. Reproducability is specified with 1 μm by manual handling.
The deeper the penetration of the expanding pin, the greater the split, and the expansion of the half-shells and the wider the gauged diameter of the measured hole. Comparable measurement depths were gained using distance sleeves on levels of 2, 4, and 6 mm. This means that each drill hole was measured in three levels of depth. Each measuring was taken twice in different orientations. The values of the two corresponding measurements were then averaged.
Statistics
A software package (SPSS 11.0 Inc. Chicago, IL, USA) was used for the statistical analysis. Mean values and standard deviations were calculated for each group. Data was found not normally distributed (Kolmogorov-Smirnov-Test), so that Wilcoxon analysis was performed to compare the level of significance within and between the groups.
Results
For experimental in vitro evaluation of accuracy of drill holes diameters, drilling for 360 implant sites preparations has been performed and subsequent precise measuring has been taken. Due to the different protocols which are either done in multi-step or a single-drilling procedure, 360 implants sites represent 900 drilling actions in total. Measurement of diameters of drill holes produced by a 3.25-mm surgical drill bit provided data within the limits of 3.10 and 3.67 mm. As result from elastic property of natural bone tissue, many measured values were showing a smaller diameter of the drill hole than the deployed drilling instrument with a dimension of 3.25 mm [22, 23]. Previous published data already showed the impact of expertise level on precision and accuracy concerning the diameter of preparations [21]. In the present work, these results were replicated and the advantage of template-guided drilling used by low or high-level skilled operators was reconfirmed (Figs. 3, 4, 5). Operators with low level of experience in dental implantation were producing drill holes with higher degree of variations in diameter by means of higher standard deviations in measurement depth of 2, 4, and 6 mm. Experienced operators produce significantly differing drilling hole diameters (p ≤ 0.001) over less experienced operators when using the multi-step technique, as shown in Fig. 3 [21].
Less experienced operators were able to significantly increase the accuracy of the diameter through using a guiding template significantly (p ≤ 0.001), (Fig. 4). Multi-step preparations strongly benefit from template guidance when performed by individuals with low training status.
On the contrary, the beneficial effect of template guidance in hands of experienced operators is significant, but much less pronounced. Professional oral surgeons were not producing significant superior accuracies of drill holes diameters over less experienced operators, when templates were used. Manual multi-step preparation is showing higher values of accuracy with mathematical significant evidence, as shown in Fig. 5.
When the freehand technique combined with multi-step drilling was used, unexperienced operators were not able to produce significantly improved drill holes accuracies over the freehand single-step technique Fig. 6.
Statistical evaluation of the effect of the simplified single-drill technique in combination with manual handling shows mean values of drill hole diameters between 3.213 and 3.271 mm in depth of measurement between 2 and 6 mm. The significant difference (p ≤ 0.001) in comparison to the standard drill protocol with mean values between 3.255 and 3.289 mm of drill holes diameter becomes apparent. Experienced operators using the single-step technique achieved a significantly increased accuracy over their multi-step results (Fig. 7).
Experienced operators were able to improve their already very exact guided preparation results by using the single-step technique (Fig. 8).
One central and general observation in the present study was that deviations are increasing with the depth of the drilling hole, regardless of technique or level of experience Figs. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5.
Discussion
Conditions beneficial for a desired primary stability of implants have been widely discussed and are known to be dependent on several factors: material, surface, diameter, and shape of the dental implant itself as well as practical factors during the surgery [24,25,26,27]. Correct use and insertion of the dental implant are obligatory for successful surgery.
The precise site preparation of the drilling hole and choice of corresponding drilling tools and implant systems is very essential as well [21, 28]. Optimal osseointegration requires optimal implant-bone contact, especially since this process it is not yet fully understood and since drilling debris has influences on initial osseointegration [29,30,31,32,33]. Previous studies demonstrate that micromovement of the implant above 150 μm leads to encapsulation by fibrous tissue. It also results in resorption of bone and inhibition of sufficient growth of osteoblasts. Disabled osteoblasts accounts for reduced wound healing [34, 35]. Several studies suggest that a possible explanation for the greater stability is the use of undersized caliber drills for preparation. Here, the implant is subsequently being press fitted into the site. This press-fit theory emphasizes, that accuracy again is a fundamental resource needed to achieve primary stability and successful outcome of dental implantation [36,37,38,39]. Prolonged tissue exposure is also known to have a negative effect on postoperative course due to the increased release of pro-inflammatory cytokines and amplified inflammatory response [40]. In order to achieve less hands-on-time in dental implant surgery and to improve on accuracy, a simplified drilling protocol was pursued. Therefore, a protocol with guided support, achieving less micromovement, was set up. Previous studies have reported that simplifications of the traditional gradual expansion result in bone apposition to implants that is comparable with traditional techniques [41, 42]. Several publications suggested, that reducing the number of drill steps is not compromising clinical results [13, 14, 43]. Limiting the duration of surgical intervention is argued to be not only causing more patient satisfactory but also to be leading to better healing [44].
Many implant manufacturers do provide alternative and simplified preparation protocols. These protocols have been reviewed with regard to duration of the bone formation process and success in osseointegration [42, 44]. Defective or delayed bone formation is more related to wider implant diameters due to prolonged healing time. These findings were observed in conservative drilling protocols as well as simplified procedures [41, 45]. Literature also provides indications, that incremental preparation of bone potentially results in an interference during the drilling steps caused by bone debris transportation [46]. Additionally, data is available from a study that compared a multi-stepped drill protocol to a single-stage implant site preparation. Here, analysis of thermal influences during the drilling process was performed and outcome of primary stability was evaluated by resonance frequencies analysis. In contrast to the present study, these experiments were performed in artificial bone samples. Results showed that implant stability was higher when single-staged drilling technique was used, compared to incremental drilling protocol. The authors see a possible explanation for the greater stability in the press-fit theory. Additionally, reduced site preparation time and thus lesser bone tissue damage were emphasized as advantages of the single-step technique [47]. In the present study, the aspect of beneficial reductions in preparation time, when using a single-stage protocol, was incorporated into an analysis of alternative drilling procedures. These analytical aspects were supplemented with measurement of precision of the produced drill holes.
Our data was obtained from experiments using natural bone and provides rather life-like (true-to-life) conditions. In the present study, it was possible to confirm the published results, performed in artificial material. Our results indicated higher accuracy of implant preparations generated by single-step drill protocols, which might result in an increased primary stability. Due to characteristic structural inhomogeinities in natural bone, the in vitro specimens provide almost ideal physical properties. Clinical conditions may show less precise results for the single-drill sites due to movement of the guides or potential restriction of access during surgery. But we expect the relations of our findings to stay valid. That may be supported by clinical studies [15, 48]. Our results significantly indicated that a reduction of the number of drilling steps leads to a reduction of potential sources of errors.
The multi-step procedure, providing the more complex workflow, was showing an increase of discrepancies in the diameter of the implant site preparation. Other factors for harmful heat production during preparation than the pure time, should be kept in mind. Especially, when simplified drilling protocols are more susceptible to interference of worn out instruments. Several studies show that temperature increases when life span of drills is exhausted after multiple usage [49, 50]. Evaluation of cutting capacity, instrument sharpness, and potential corrosion is required in context of shortened drilling procedures with less incremental steps [44]. Another disadvantage of short drilling protocols is the severely limited chance for operators to correct any noticed errors during the preparation procedure. Therefore, the single-step protocol method is advised only for clinicians with high experience. Generally, these data strongly recommended the use of surgical guides, especially in simplified protocols [44]. Multi-step drilling technique carries the option of detecting and adjusting the axis of misaligned implant sites in early stages. A reduction of the number of incremental steps down to a single-drilling phase also demands a steeper learning curve, even for experienced surgeons [14, 43]. These statements are concordant to our experimental results indicating higher degree of accuracy produced by operators with high expertise level. We see in the application of surgical guidance a beneficial technical aspect to achieve improvement of accuracy and primary stability.
Accuracy of freehand implantation may be sufficient in many clinical situations, if presurgical planning is performed accurately [51, 52]. But several studies indicate that the accuracy of axis and implant position is significantly more precise by usage of surgical guides than with the manual method. Surgical guidance also reduces the risk of damage to adjacent structures [53, 54]. Guided techniques lead to improved survival and success over freehand techniques, especially in type III and IV bone and provide potential of immediate restoration [55,56,57]. Our results demonstrate the beneficial effect of drill guidance in both drilling techniques with view to the drill holes diameters. Enhanced time and expenses required for fabrication of individual surgical guides has to be taken into account. However, this investment in time and labor is partially balanced by a reduction of chairside treatment time through implementing the single-drill technique. The improved outcome as a result from higher accuracy, might justify the added time and expense, besides the possibility of simplifying the drilling protocol. Additionally, simplified techniques using a single-drilling step just require a single-drilling guidance. This aspect is advantageous, as the multi-step technique requires multiple guides that have to be changed corresponding to each drill diameter throughout the surgery. The combination of surgical guidance and single-drill technique allows for restorations to be precisely placed and for minimal intraoperative discomfort for the patient.
Results of the present study also confirmed that placement of dental implants with use of templates for guided drilling can be performed with more precision and less risk. This advantage is shown to be regardless of the level of expertise of the practioner. Knowledge and experience of practioners is a key factor in avoiding and managing complications during the surgical procedure. In particular individual anatomy and poor access of the oral cavity especially in the posterior quadrant are challenging. These abilities and clinical conditions will show a strong impact on the clinical outcome in vivo; however, the necessary model environment cannot be simulated in an in vitro study. With multi-step drilling technique, it is possible to adjust the axis of misaligned implant sites. By reducing the number of incremental steps to a single-drilling phase, a learning curve is required even for experienced surgeons [14].The present data clearly indicates these findings and strongly supports the opinion that simplified protocols need assistance of guided drilling.
In conclusion, the present data indicates that simplified drilling protocols, like the single-drill technique, supports accuracy in dental implantation.
References
Elias CN, Rocha FA, Nascimento AL, Coelho PG (2012) Influence of implant shape, surface morphology, surgical technique and bone quality on the primary stability of dental implants. J Mech Behav Biomed Mater 16:169–180. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmbbm.2012.10.010
Brisman DL (1996) The effect of speed, pressure, and time on bone temperature during the drilling of implant sites. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 11:35–37
Ercoli C, Funkenbusch PD, Lee HJ, Moss ME, Graser GN (2004) The influence of drill wear on cutting efficiency and heat production during osteotomy preparation for dental implants: a study of drill durability. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 19:335–349
Davidson SR, James DF (2003) Drilling in bone: modeling heat generation and temperature distribution. J Biomech Eng 125:305–314
Eriksson RA, Adell R (1986) Temperatures during drilling for the placement of implants using the osseointegration technique. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 44(1):4–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/0278-2391(86)90006-6
Abouzgia MB, Symington JM (1996) Effect of drill speed on bone temperature. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 25:394–399
Sener BC, Dergin G, Gursoy B, Kelesoglu E, Slih I (2009) Effects of irrigation temperature on heat control in vitro at different drilling depths. Clin Oral Implants Res 20:294–298. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0501.2008.01643.x
dos Santos PL, Queiroz TP, Margonar R, de Souza Carvalho AC, Betoni W Jr, Rezende RR, dos Santos PH, Garcia IR Jr (2014) Evaluation of bone heating, drill deformation, and drill roughness after implant osteotomy: guided surgery and classic drilling procedure. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 29(1):51–58. https://doi.org/10.11607/jomi.2919
Mohlhenrich SC, Abouridouane M, Heussen N, Modabber A, Klocke F, Holzle F (2016) Influence of bone density and implant drill diameter on the resulting axial force and temperature development in implant burs and artificial bone: an in vitro study. Oral Maxillofac Surg 20:135–142. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10006-015-0536-z
Fuchsberger A (1988) Damaging temperature during the machining of bone. Unfallchirurgie 14:173–183
Augustin G, Davila S, Mihoci K, Udiljak T, Vedrina DS, Antabak A (2008) Thermal osteonecrosis and bone drilling parameters revisited. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 128:71–77. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00402-007-0427-3
Iyer S, Weiss C, Mehta A (1997) Effects of drill speed on heat production and the rate and quality of bone formation in dental implant osteotomies. Part II: relationship between drill speed and healing. Int J Prosthodont 10:536–540
Bettach R, Taschieri S, Boukhris G, Del Fabbro M (2015) Implant survival after preparation of the implant site using a single bur: a case series. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 17:13–21. https://doi.org/10.1111/cid.12082
Gehrke SA, Bettach R, Taschieri S, Boukhris G, Corbella S, Del Fabbro M (2015) Temperature changes in cortical bone after implant site preparation using a single bur versus multiple drilling steps: an in vitro investigation. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 17:700–707. https://doi.org/10.1111/cid.12172
Jung RE, Pjetursson BE, Glauser R, Zembic A, Zwahlen M, Lang NP (2008) A systematic review of the 5-year survival and complication rates of implant-supported single crowns. Clin Oral Implants Res 19(2):119–130. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0501.2007.01453.x
Arisan V, Karabuda ZC, Ozdemir T (2010) Accuracy of two stereolithographic guide systems for computer-aided implant placement: a computed tomography-based clinical comparative study. J Periodontol 81:43–51. https://doi.org/10.1902/jop.2009.090348
Valente F, Schiroli G, Sbrenna A (2009) Accuracy of computer-aided oral implant surgery: a clinical and radiographic study. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 24:234–242
Bulloch SE, Olsen RG, Bulloch B (2012) Comparison of heat generation between internally guided (cannulated) single drill and traditional sequential drilling with and without a drill guide for dental implants. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 27:1456–1460
Bardyn T, Gedet P, Hallermann W, Buchler P (2009) Quantifying the influence of bone density and thickness on resonance frequency analysis: an in vitro study of biomechanical test materials. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 24:1006–1014
Swami V, Vijayaraghavan V, Swami V (2016) Current trends to measure implant stability. J Indian Prosthodont Soc 16:124–130. https://doi.org/10.4103/0972-4052.176539
Scherer U, Stoetzer M, Ruecker M, Gellrich NC, von See C (2015) Template-guided vs. non-guided drilling in site preparation of dental implants. Clin Oral Investig 19:1339–1346. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-014-1346-7
Oftadeh R, Perez-Viloria M, Villa-Camacho JC, Vaziri A, Nazarian A (2015) Biomechanics and mechanobiology of trabecular bone: a review. J Biomech Eng 137(1):010802. https://doi.org/10.1115/1.4029176
Haiat G, Wang HL, Brunski J (2014) Effects of biomechanical properties of the bone-implant interface on dental implant stability: from in silico approaches to the patient’s mouth. Annu Rev Biomed Eng 16:187–213. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-bioeng-071813-104854
Kim SK, Lee HN, Choi YC, Heo SJ, Lee CW, Choie MK (2006) Effects of anodized oxidation or turned implants on bone healing after using conventional drilling or trabecular compaction technique: histomorphometric analysis and RFA. Clin Oral Implants Res 17(6):644–650. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0501.2006.01285.x
Sennerby L (2008) Dental implants: matters of course and controversies. Periodontol 2000(47):9–14. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0757.2008.00268.x
Sennerby L, Meredith N (2008) implant stability measurements using resonance frequency analysis: biological and biomechanical aspects and clinical implications. Periodontol 47:51–66. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0757.2008.00267.x
Friberg B, Ekestubbe A, Sennerby L (2002) Clinical outcome of Branemark system implants of various diameters: a retrospective study. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 17:671–677
Tabassum A, Meijer GJ, Wolke JG, Jansen JA (2010) Influence of surgical technique and surface roughness on the primary stability of an implant in artificial bone with different cortical thickness: a laboratory study. Clin Oral Implants Res 21:213–220. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0501.2009.01823.x
MacAvelia T, Salahi M, Olsen M, Crookshank M, Schemitsch EH, Ghasempoor A, Janabi-Sharifi F, Zdero R (2012) Biomechanical measurements of surgical drilling force and torque in human versus artificial femurs. J Biomech Eng 134:124503. https://doi.org/10.1115/1.4007953
Macavelia T, Ghasempoor A, Janabi-Sharifi F (2012) Force and torque modelling of drilling simulation for orthopaedic surgery. Comput Methods Biomech Biomed Engin 17(12):1285–1294. https://doi.org/10.1080/10255842.2012.739163
Dhore CR, Snel SJ, Jacques SV, Naert IE, Walboomers XF, Jansen JA (2008) In vitro osteogenic potential of bone debris resulting from placement of titanium screw-type implants. Clin Oral Implants Res 19:606–611. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0501.2007.01519.x
Beaman FD, Bancroft LW, Peterson JJ, Kransdorf MJ (2006) Bone graft materials and synthetic substitutes. Radiol Clin North Am 44(3):451–461. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rcl.2006.01.001
Beaman FD, Bancroft LW, Peterson JJ, Kransdorf MJ, Menke DM, DeOrio JK (2006) Imaging characteristics of bone graft materials. Radiographics 26(2):373–388. https://doi.org/10.1148/rg.262055039
Gao SS, Zhang YR, Zhu ZL, Yu HY (2012) Micromotions and combined damages at the dental implant/bone interface. Int J Oral Sci 4:182–188. https://doi.org/10.1038/ijos.2012.68
Szmukler-Moncler S, Salama H, Reingewirtz Y, Dubruille JH (1998) Timing of loading and effect of micromotion on bone-dental implant interface: review of experimental literature. J Biomed Mater Res 43:192–203. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1097-4636(199822)43:23.0.CO;2-K
Frisardi G, Barone S, Razionale AV, Paoli A, Frisardi F, Tullio A, Lumbau A, Chessa G (2012) Biomechanics of the press-fit phenomenon in dental implantology: an image-based finite element analysis. Head Face Med 8(1):18. https://doi.org/10.1186/1746-160X-8-18
Alghamdi H, Anand PS, Anil S (2011) Undersized implant site preparation to enhance primary implant stability in poor bone density: a prospective clinical study. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 69(12):e506–e512. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joms.2011.08.007
Anitua E, Alkhraisat MH, Pinas L, Orive G (2014) Efficacy of biologically guided implant site preparation to obtain adequate primary implant stability. Ann Anat 199:9–15
Coelho PG, Marin C, Teixeira HS, Campos FE, Gomes JB, Guastaldi F, Anchieta RB, Silveira L, Bonfante EA (2013) Biomechanical evaluation of undersized drilling on implant biomechanical stability at early implantation times. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 71:e69–e75. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joms.2012.10.008
Penarrocha M, Garcia B, Marti E, Balaguer J (2006) Pain and inflammation after periapical surgery in 60 patients. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 64:429–433
Jimbo R, Janal MN, Marin C, Giro G, Tovar N, Coelho PG (2014) The effect of implant diameter on osseointegration utilizing simplified drilling protocols. Clin Oral Implants Res 25(11):1295–1300. https://doi.org/10.1111/clr.12268
Giro G, Tovar N, Marin C, Bonfante EA, Jimbo R, Suzuki M, Janal MN, Coelho PG (2013) The effect of simplifying dental implant drilling sequence on osseointegration: an experimental study in dogs. Int J Biomater 2013:230310–230316. https://doi.org/10.1155/2013/230310
Gehrke SA (2015) Evaluation of the cortical bone reaction around of implants using a single-use final drill: a histologic study. J Craniofac Surg 26:1482–1486. https://doi.org/10.1097/SCS.0000000000001788
Bratu E, Mihali S, Shapira L, Bratu DC, Wang HL (2015) Crestal bone remodeling around implants placed using a short drilling protocol. Int J Oral Maxillofac implants 30:435–440. https://doi.org/10.11607/jomi.3526
Jimbo R, Tovar N, Anchieta RB, Machado LS, Marin C, Teixeira HS, Coelho PG (2014) The combined effects of undersized drilling and implant macrogeometry on bone healing around dental implants: an experimental study. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 43:1269–1275. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijom.2014.03.017
Park SY, Shin SY, Yang SM, Kye SB (2010) Effect of implant drill design on the particle size of the bone collected during osteotomy. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 39:1007–1011. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijom.2010.05.009
Abboud M, Delgado-Ruiz RA, Kucine A, Rugova S, Balanta J, Calvo-Guirado JL (2015) Multistepped drill design for single-stage implant site preparation: experimental study in type 2 bone. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 17(Suppl 2):e472–e485. https://doi.org/10.1111/cid.12273
Schneider D, Marquardt P, Zwahlen M, Jung RE (2009) A systematic review on the accuracy and the clinical outcome of computer-guided template-based implant dentistry. Clin Oral Implants Res 20(Suppl 4):73–86. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0501.2009.01788.x
Allsobrook OF, Leichter J, Holborrow D, Swain M (2011) Descriptive study of the longevity of dental implant surgery drills. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 13:244–254
Chacon GE, Bower DL, Larsen PE, McGlumphy EA, Beck FM (2006) Heat production by 3 implant drill systems after repeated drilling and sterilization. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 64:265–269. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joms.2005.10.011
Brief J, Edinger D, Hassfeld S, Eggers G (2005) Accuracy of image-guided implantology. Clin Oral Implants Res 16(4):495–501. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0501.2005.01133.x
Fortin T, Bosson JL, Coudert JL, Isidori M (2003) Reliability of preoperative planning of an image-guided system for oral implant placement based on 3-dimensional images: an in vivo study. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 18(6):886–893
Nickenig HJ, Eitner S, Rothamel D, Wichmann M, Zoller JE (2012) Possibilities and limitations of implant placement by virtual planning data and surgical guide templates. Int J Comput Dent 15:9–21
Sarment DP, Sukovic P, Clinthorne N (2003) Accuracy of implant placement with a stereolithographic surgical guide. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 18:571–577
Schnitman PA, Hayashi C, Han RK (2014) Why guided when freehand is easier, quicker, and less costly? J Oral Implantol 40:670–678. https://doi.org/10.1563/aaid-joi-D-14-00231
van Steenberghe D, Glauser R, Blomback U, Andersson M, Schutyser F, Pettersson A, Wendelhag I (2005) A computed tomographic scan-derived customized surgical template and fixed prosthesis for flapless surgery and immediate loading of implants in fully edentulous maxillae: a prospective multicenter study. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 7(Suppl 1):S111–S120
D'haese J, Van De Velde T, Komiyama A, Hultin M, De Bruyn H (2012) Accuracy and complications using computer-designed stereolithographic surgical guides for oral rehabilitation by means of dental implants: a review of the literature. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 14:321–335. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1708-8208.2010.00275.x
Funding
The work was supported by the Klinik für Mund-, Kiefer- und Gesichtschirurgie, Medizinische Hochschule Hannover, Carl-Neuberg-Str. 1, 30625 Hannover, Germany.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
Ethical approval
This article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Marheineke, N., Scherer, U., Rücker, M. et al. Evaluation of accuracy in implant site preparation performed in single- or multi-step drilling procedures. Clin Oral Invest 22, 2057–2067 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-017-2312-y
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-017-2312-y