Piezoelectric Versus Conventional Implant Site Preparation

A study investigating differences in primary stability between implants placed in cortical bone following Piezoelectric or conventional site preparation was published in Clinical Oral Implants Research. Stability was assessed using resonance frequency analysis (RFA) and reverse torque testing (RTT). The study used 4 fresh bovine ribs, with 5 sites per rib for which surgical guides were fabricated for proper site preparation. Implant sites were prepared via conventional drilling technique as per manufacturer's instruction (Implantium) or via Piezoelectric (Mectron) implant site preparation using the Implant Prep kit. Twenty 10-mm long, 3.6-mm diameter Implantium implants were placed with 35 Ncm torque; 10 implants per preparation method. RFA was assessed and 5 values were taken per implant. All implants were subjected to a reverse torque in increasing increments of 5 until 50 Ncm force was reached. The 5 RFA values per site were averaged and plotted by placement technique. A paired T-test statistical analysis was run. The study found that the average RFA values showed no statistical significance between the 10 test (RFA = 69.04 ± 5.11) and 10 control (RFA = 70.94 ± 6.41) sites. All implants in both groups withstood RTT up to 50 Ncm force without movement and thus showed no statistical differences. The study implies that the Piezoelectric implant site preparation affords similar primary implant stability in comparison to conventional rotary instrumentation in cortical bone.
(Source: Clinical Oral Implants Research, first published online September 15, 2011)


Hide comment form

Smileys

:confused::cool::cry::laugh::lol::normal::blush::rolleyes::sad::shocked::sick::sleeping::smile::surprised::tongue::unsure::whistle::wink:

1000 Characters left

Antispam Refresh image Case sensitive