Comparison of Er:YAG laser, piezoelectric, and drill osteotomy for dental implant site preparation: A biomechanical and histological analysis in sheep
✍ Scribed by Stefan Stübinger; Kristina Biermeier; Beatus Bächi; Stephen J. Ferguson; Robert Sader; Brigitte von Rechenberg
- Publisher
- John Wiley and Sons
- Year
- 2010
- Tongue
- English
- Weight
- 349 KB
- Volume
- 42
- Category
- Article
- ISSN
- 0196-8092
No coin nor oath required. For personal study only.
✦ Synopsis
Abstract
Background and Objectives
The aim of this study was to examine the influence of implant bed preparation, using either Er:YAG laser ablation, piezoelectric surgery or drill osteotomy, on osseointegration of titanium dental implants after 4, 6, and 8 weeks.
Material and Methods
A total of 108 implants (Camlog) were placed in the pelvis of 6 sheep (18 implants/sheep). Implant sites were prepared by an Er:YAG laser, a dental drill or a piezoelectric device. For each time period, six implants were used for biomechanical removal torque testing and six implants for a semi‐quantitative histological assessment of the bone‐to‐implant contact (BIC).
Results
An initially missing implant adjusted site preparation led to slightly higher BIC and torque values in the piezoelectric and laser groups due to a press‐fit effect after 4 weeks. Statistical analysis of the average mean BIC after 4, 6, and 8 weeks revealed no significant differences (P > 0.05) between the different osteotomy techniques. Comparison of individual removal torque values showed the highest value for laser osteotomy after 8 weeks (1,698.50 ± 67.52 Nmm), which was significantly higher than the corresponding value for drill osteotomy (P = 0.006).
Conclusion
Although BIC and removal torque values decreased in the laser and piezoelectric groups at 6 weeks during an active remodeling process, favorable and superior BIC as well as torque values could be demonstrated at 8 weeks. Thus laser and piezoelectric osteotomy seem to be at least comparable to drill osteotomy, concerning early osseointegration and implant stability. Lasers Surg. Med. 42:652–661, 2010. © 2010 Wiley‐Liss, Inc.