[EO-1] Title: COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF OSSEODENSIFICATION DRILLING/OSTEOTOMY VERSUS CONVENTIONAL DRILLING/OSTEOTOMY TECHNIQUE ON DENTAL IMPLANT STABILITY: A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW
Subtitle: Role of the drilling mechanism towards achieving Implant stability
[Abstract]
ABSTRACT
Objective: The present systematic review compares the stability and efficacy of osseodensification (OD) drilling/osteotomy techniques for dental implant placement to more traditional drilling/osteotomy methods.
Method: A thorough search of pertinent databases was carried out in accordance with PRISMA standards. Studies testing dental implant stability, bone-to-implant interface, and clinical results using both OD and traditional procedures were covered by the inclusion criteria. Using a systematic review design, this study examines published qualitative studies with an emphasis on analysis. The risk of bias and quality of included studies was assessed using the Risk of Bias tool for randomized controlled trials and the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale for observational studies.
Results & Discussion: A total of 170 patients and 334 implants were included in eight papers that made up the systematic review. In a number of clinical situations, osseodensification outperformed standard drilling in terms of implant durability, bone development, and torque data. Statistical analysis and incomplete outcome data presented the lowest risks, while blinded outcome assessment, allocation concealment, random sequence generation, and experimental technique revealed higher risks. Osseodensification exhibits superior torque values, bone development, and stability when compared to traditional drilling. The overall results highlight the potential of osseodensification to improve clinical outcomes and advance the science of dental implantology, even in the face of variances in bias concerns.
References:
1.Albrektsson T, Brånemark PI, Hansson HA, et al. Osseointegrated titanium implants. Requirements for ensuring a long-lasting, direct bone-to-implant anchorage in man. Acta Orthop Scand. 1981;52(2):155-70.
2.Esposito M, Ardebili Y, Worthington HV. Interventions for replacing missing teeth: different types of dental implants. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2014 Jul 22;(7):CD003815.
3.Halldin A, Jimbo R, Johansson CB, et al. The effect of static bone strain on implant stability and bone remodeling. Bone. 2011 Oct;49(4):783-9.
4.Trisi P, Todisco M, Consolo U, et al. High versus low implant insertion torque: a histologic, histomorphometric, and biomechanical study in the sheep mandible. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2011 Jul-Aug;26(4):837-49.
5.Ottoni JM, Oliveira ZF, Mansini R, et al. Correlation between placement torque and survival of single-tooth implants. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2005 Sep-Oct;20(5):769-76.
ABSTRACT
Objective: The present systematic review compares the stability and efficacy of osseodensification (OD) drilling/osteotomy techniques for dental implant placement to more traditional drilling/osteotomy methods.
Method: A thorough search of pertinent databases was carried out in accordance with PRISMA standards. Studies testing dental implant stability, bone-to-implant interface, and clinical results using both OD and traditional procedures were covered by the inclusion criteria. Using a systematic review design, this study examines published qualitative studies with an emphasis on analysis. The risk of bias and quality of included studies was assessed using the Risk of Bias tool for randomized controlled trials and the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale for observational studies.
Results & Discussion: A total of 170 patients and 334 implants were included in eight papers that made up the systematic review. In a number of clinical situations, osseodensification outperformed standard drilling in terms of implant durability, bone development, and torque data. Statistical analysis and incomplete outcome data presented the lowest risks, while blinded outcome assessment, allocation concealment, random sequence generation, and experimental technique revealed higher risks. Osseodensification exhibits superior torque values, bone development, and stability when compared to traditional drilling. The overall results highlight the potential of osseodensification to improve clinical outcomes and advance the science of dental implantology, even in the face of variances in bias concerns.
References:
1.Albrektsson T, Brånemark PI, Hansson HA, et al. Osseointegrated titanium implants. Requirements for ensuring a long-lasting, direct bone-to-implant anchorage in man. Acta Orthop Scand. 1981;52(2):155-70.
2.Esposito M, Ardebili Y, Worthington HV. Interventions for replacing missing teeth: different types of dental implants. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2014 Jul 22;(7):CD003815.
3.Halldin A, Jimbo R, Johansson CB, et al. The effect of static bone strain on implant stability and bone remodeling. Bone. 2011 Oct;49(4):783-9.
4.Trisi P, Todisco M, Consolo U, et al. High versus low implant insertion torque: a histologic, histomorphometric, and biomechanical study in the sheep mandible. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2011 Jul-Aug;26(4):837-49.
5.Ottoni JM, Oliveira ZF, Mansini R, et al. Correlation between placement torque and survival of single-tooth implants. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2005 Sep-Oct;20(5):769-76.