Search

Robotic systems have revolutionized various industries, and dentistry is no exception. Recently, due to the robust advancements in artificial intelligence and technology, there has been a significant evolution of dental robotic systems, ranging from surgeon-controlled and robot-assisted operations to more autonomous processes. The present clinical case report describes a 1-year follow-up of the successful use of an autonomous dental implant robot system with an osseodensification protocol for implant osteotomy preparation, maxillary sinus elevation, and simultaneous implant placement at the maxillary second premolar site. A prefabricated provisional prosthesis was delivered immediately after implant placement, with final prosthesis delivery at 3 months. The findings from this report demonstrate the integration and clinical augmentation of more autonomous protocols in the field of implant dentistry using dental robots. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: This systematic review aimed to search the literature for the answer to the following questions. In human studies: Does the osseodensification technique increase the resonance frequency analysis given in implant stability quotient value and the insertion torque value compared to the conventional technique? In animal studies: Does the osseodensification technique increase implant stability quotient, bone-to-implant contact, and bone area fraction occupancy values over the conventional technique? Data sources: A search forstudies was carried out in eight databases until August 2021. Out of the 447 publications found, 11 were included. Results: In human studies, osseodensification technique showed better results for implant stability quotient values with a summarized median difference of 8.57. As for secondary stability, there was no significant difference, with summarized median difference of 4.49 in favor of the osseodensification technique. In animal studies, all results were favorable to the osseo-densification technique. Regarding insertion torque, bone-to-implant contact, and bone area fraction occupancy between counterclockwise osseodensification technique vs conventional, the mean difference was 46.79 for insertion torque, 2.17 for bone-to-implant contact, and 2.11 for bone area fraction occupancy. High heterogeneity was observed between the studies. The risk of bias in humans was moderate in three studies and low in one; and in animal studies, four presented moderate risk, two low risk, and one high risk. The certainty of evidence ranged from low to moderate. Conclusion: The osseodensification technique showed improvement concerning the resonance frequency and the insertion torque value of implants in human studies. In addition, it increased the values of bone-to-implant contact, bone area fraction occupancy, and implantstability quotient in animal studies, when compared to the conventional technique. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Dental implant success critically depends on the primary stability of the implant, which is significantly influenced by the bone density at the osteotomy site. Traditional drilling techniques for osteotomy preparation often compromise bone volume and quality. This study aimed to evaluate the impact of osseodensification, a novel osteotomy preparation technique, on bone density and implant stability. The technique utilizes specialized drills that operate in a counter-clockwise direction to compact autografted bone laterally and apically, preserving and enhancing bone density. Methods: A total of 32 patients undergoing dental implant surgery were included in this study. Pre-operative and post-operative bone densities at the apical, mesial, and distal regions of the osteotomy sites were measured using Dentascan (CT) and analyzed with Radiant DICOM software. The study utilized osseodensification drills for osteotomy preparation, comparing pre-operative and post-operative bone densities to assess the technique's efficacy. Results: The study found a statistically significant increase in bone density post-operatively (p < 0.001), with the greatest improvement observed in the distal region, followed by the mesial and apical regions. The findings underscore osseodensification's effectiveness in enhancing bone density and primary stability, with the distal region exhibiting the highest bone density. Conclusion: Osseodensification represents a significant advancement in implant dentistry for osteotomy preparation. By preserving and increasing bone density through compact autografting, this technique not only improves primary stability but also offers potential benefits in indirect sinus lifting and alveolar ridge expansion. The study advocates for the broader adoption of osseodensification drills in clinical practice to achieve better outcomes in dental implantology. Trial Registration: This study received ethical approval from The Research Ethics Committee at King Khalid University's under Approval no. ECM#2024 − 216. Additionally, it was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, identifier no: NCT06268639. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Transalveolar sinus elevation is a minimally invasive technique aimed at augmenting the vertical bone height in the posterior maxilla, facilitating successful implant placement in areas with insufficient bone volume. This study compares the efficacy of osseodensification and piezoelectric internal sinus elevation (PISE) techniques in delayed implant placement. The primary objective was to radiographically assess vertical bone gain and bone density, while secondary objectives included clinical assessment of primary implant stability and post-operative satisfaction of both patients and operators. The study population of a total of 16 patients was randomly divided into two groups. Group 1 underwent osseodensification sinus lift using sticky bone as a graft material, whereas Group 2 received PISE with the same graft material. Results indicated that the osseodensification technique led to greater bone gain, improved bone density, and shorter surgical duration. Additionally, osseodensification was associated with enhanced rapid healing and higher patient satisfaction. Conversely, the PISE technique demonstrated superior primary stability of implants on the day of surgery. These findings suggest that while both techniques are effective, osseodensification may offer advantages in terms of bone gain, density, and patient satisfaction, making it a reliable method for enhancing rapid healing in delayed implant placement. the study was registered on clinicaltrials.gov at 26th September 2023 and clinical trials ID is NCT06055127. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Osseodensification is a novel approach that has significantly advanced the field of implant dentistry, particularly in the context of transcrestal maxillary sinus floor elevation. This technique involves the use of specially designed burs that compact and densify bone along the osteotomy walls, thereby enhancing implant primary stability and facilitating osseointegration in low‐density bone. This article reviews the historical evolution of implant site preparation, and the biomechanical, histological, and clinical evidence of osseodensification with a special focus on its application in sinus floor augmentation. The integration of this technique into contemporary practice represents a paradigm shift, offering a minimally invasive and efficient solution for addressing the challenges of posterior maxilla, with improved patient‐reported outcomes and low complication rate. Three different protocols for sinus lift and implant placement using osseodensification burs are proposed based on available literature, and risk factors for Schneiderian membrane perforation based on residual bone height are discussed, along with implant‐related outcomes and patient‐reported outcome measures. The potential for osseodensification to become a standard practice in sinus floor augmentation is emphasized, highlighting key aspects such as surgical protocol and patient selection. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction Osseodensification (OD) compaction increases primary stability by leaving the residual bone particles in the osteotomy site, which in turn act as an autograft.[1] Condensing the bone trabeculae through OD has demonstrated to have a potentiating influence on secondary stability.[2] Materials and Methods A split-mouth study was conducted in 40 patients to determine the effect of OD on implant success rate in terms of primary and secondary stability in situations including immediate loading of implants placed in low-density bone, which was tested using resonance frequency analysis (RFA) at the interval of 0, 6th month. In order to assess the implant success rate, gingival probing depth and crestal bone loss (CBL) around the implant were also assessed at baseline and 6 months. Results With respect to primary stability, at baseline, the mean RFA of Densah burs is 71.6 ± 9.5 and of conventional drills is 67.6 ± 10.4. The mean stability of Densah burs is significantly higher than conventional drills, both at baseline and after 6 months as well. CBL, at baseline, the mean CBL of Densah burs is 0.58 ± 0.11 and of conventional drills is 0.64 ± 0.12. The mean CBL of Densah burs is significantly lower than that of conventional drills for both. Conclusion The implant stability values found in the present study were remarkable when compared between OD and conventional osteotomy techniques. Decreased loss of bone at the crest probing depth also aided in the increased success rate.

Abstract Transalveolar sinus elevation is a minimally invasive technique aimed at augmenting the vertical bone height in the posterior maxilla, facilitating successful implant placement in areas with insufficient bone volume. This study compares the efficacy of osseodensification and piezoelectric internal sinus elevation (PISE) techniques in delayed implant placement. The primary objective was to radiographically assess vertical bone gain and bone density, while secondary objectives included clinical assessment of primary implant stability and post-operative satisfaction of both patients and operators. The study population of a total of 16 patients was randomly divided into two groups. Group 1 underwent osseodensification sinus lift using sticky bone as a graft material, whereas Group 2 received PISE with the same graft material. Results indicated that the osseodensification technique led to greater bone gain, improved bone density, and shorter surgical duration. Additionally, osseodensification was associated with enhanced rapid healing and higher patient satisfaction. Conversely, the PISE technique demonstrated superior primary stability of implants on the day of surgery. These findings suggest that while both techniques are effective, osseodensification may offer advantages in terms of bone gain, density, and patient satisfaction, making it a reliable method for enhancing rapid healing in delayed implant placement. the study was registered on clinicaltrials.gov at 26th September 2023 and clinical trials ID is NCT06055127.

Introduction: We aimed to compare the implant stability quotient (ISQ) values of endosteal dental implants (DIs) inserted into narrow alveolar ridges via osseodensification (OD) versus manual screw expansion (SE). Methods: Nineteen patients were randomized into two groups. The patients ranged in age from 21 to 59 years, with 46 implant osteotomy sites and 41 DIs. Twenty DIs were installed using OD drilling (OD group), and 21 DIs were inserted using manual screw expander drills (SE group). Primary stability was measured at the surgery time, and secondary stability was measured at the 24th week using the Osstell ISQ device. A probability value < 0.05 was considered to be statistically significant. Results: No statistical difference was observed between the mean values of primary stability of the OD (ISQ: 67.06 ± 4.41) and SE (ISQ: 67.76 ± 4.79) groups (P = 0.518). No statistical difference was noted between the mean values of secondary implant stability of the OD (ISQ: 68.53 ± 6.70) and SE (68 ± 5.68) groups (P = 0.780). Conclusion: The OD technique is comparable with the manual SE counterpart in terms of primary and secondary stability.

Aim: The present systematic review compares the stability, crestal bone levels and efficacy of osseodensification (OD) drilling techniques for dental implant placement to traditional drilling methods. Settings and Design: The Cochrane online library, PubMed, Scopus, and other well-known online resources are used in the research. Using a systematic review design, the current study examines published qualitative studies with an emphasis on analysis. Materials and Methods: Using precise keywords, a thorough search of pertinent databases was carried out in accordance with PRISMA standards. Studies testing dental implant stability, crestal bone levels and clinical results using both OD and traditional procedures were covered by the inclusion criteria. Statistical Analysis Used: The risk of bias and quality of included studies was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale for observational studies and the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool for randomized controlled trials. Results: A total of 170 patients and 334 implants from Egypt, India, and Brazil were included in eight papers that made up the systematic review. In several clinical situations, osseodensification outperformed standard drilling in terms of implant durability, bone development, and torque data. Statistical analysis presented the lowest risks, while blinded outcome assessment, allocation concealment, random sequence generation, incomplete outcome data and experimental technique revealed higher risks. Bias assessment found various risks across different components. Conclusion: The thorough examination of eight papers demonstrates that osseodensification is a technique with great promise in the field of dental implants. It 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.

Osseodensification enhances the stability of endosteal implants. However, pre-clinical studies utilizing osseodensification instrumentation do not account for the limited presence of trabeculae seen clinically. This study aimed to evaluate the effect of osseodensification instrumentation on osteotomy healing in scenarios with and without the presence of trabecular bone. A ~10 cm incision was made over the hip of twelve sheep. Trabecular bone was surgically removed from twelve sites (one site/animal; negative control (Neg. Ctrl)) and left intact at twelve sites (one site/animal; experimental group (Exp.)). All osteotomies were created using the osseodensification drilling protocol. Each osteotomy received an endosteal implant and was evaluated after 3 or 12 weeks of healing (n = 6 animals/time). Histology revealed increased woven and lamellar bone surrounding the implants in the Exp. group relative to the Neg. Ctrl group. The Exp. group demonstrated the presence of bone fragments, which acted as nucleating sites, thereby enhancing the bone formation and remodeling processes. Bone-to-implant contact (%BIC) and bone area fractional occupancy (%BAFO) were significantly higher in the Exp. group relative to the Neg. Ctrl group both at 3 weeks (p = 0.009 and p = 0.043) and 12 weeks (p = 0.010 and p = 0.008). Osseodensification instrumentation in the presence of trabecular bone significantly improved osseointegration. However, no negative influences such as necrosis, inflammation, microfractures, or dehiscence were observed in the absence/limited presence of trabeculae. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose Materials and Methods Results Conclusion This multicenter cross‐sectional clinical study aimed to evaluate the membrane perforation rate during transcrestal sinus floor elevation (TSFE) using osseodensification (OD) burs and assess risk factors associated with the procedure.This study was conducted in six centers, following ethical standards and approved by local committees. It included patients over 18 years old missing maxillary posterior teeth with crestal residual bone height (RBH) ≥2 and ≤6 mm. Preoperative evaluations were done, including CBCT scans, to assess bone dimensions and sinus health. All centers and surgeons followed a standardized surgical protocol for TSFE using OD burs. Surgical complications, particularly sinus membrane perforations, were recorded and analyzed. Factors such as implant site, premolars or molars, as well as, healed or fresh socket, along with initial RBH were evaluated for their impact on membrane perforation rate. Descriptive statistics, χ2, and logistic regression analysis were used to analyze the data.A total of 621 subjects with an average age of 57.9 years were included. Sinus lifting was performed at 670 sites, with 621 implants placed in the maxilla. The majority of sinus lifts were done in the molar region (76.87%) and in healed bone sites (74.33%). The average RBH was 5.1 mm (ranging from 2 to 7 mm). Sinus membrane perforation occurred in 49 cases (7.31%). RBH ≤3 mm posed a risk factor for sinus membrane perforations followed by RBH >3 and ≤5 mm. Tooth region and implant site were not associated as risk factors for sinus membrane perforation.OD drilling used for TSFE resulted in low membrane perforation rate. Challenging scenarios of severe posterior maxillary atrophy presented as risk factors for increased perforation rate. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aim: The present systematic review compares the stability, crestal bone levels and efficacy of osseodensification (OD) drilling techniques for dental implant placement to traditional drilling methods. Settings and Design: The Cochrane online library, PubMed, Scopus, and other well-known online resources are used in the research. Using a systematic review design, the current study examines published qualitative studies with an emphasis on analysis. Materials and Methods: Using precise keywords, a thorough search of pertinent databases was carried out in accordance with PRISMA standards. Studies testing dental implant stability, crestal bone levels and clinical results using both OD and traditional procedures were covered by the inclusion criteria. Statistical Analysis Used: The risk of bias and quality of included studies was assessed using the Newcastle- Ottawa Scale for observational studies and the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool for randomized controlled trials. Results: A total of 170 patients and 334 implants from Egypt, India, and Brazil were included in eight papers that made up the systematic review. In several clinical situations, osseodensification outperformed standard drilling in terms of implant durability, bone development, and torque data. Statistical analysis presented the lowest risks, while blinded outcome assessment, allocation concealment, random sequence generation, incomplete outcome data and experimental technique revealed higher risks. Bias assessment found various risks across different components. Conclusion: The thorough examination of eight papers demonstrates that osseodensification is a technique with great promise in the field of dental implants. It 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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: We aimed to compare the implant stability quotient (ISQ) values of endosteal dental implants (DIs) inserted into narrow alveolar ridges via osseodensification (OD) versus manual screw expansion (SE). Methods: Nineteen patients were randomized into two groups. The patients ranged in age from 21 to 59 years, with 46 implant osteotomy sites and 41 DIs. Twenty DIs were installed using OD drilling (OD group), and 21 DIs were inserted using manual screw expander drills (SE group). Primary stability was measured at the surgery time, and secondary stability was measured at the 24th week using the Osstell ISQ device. A probability value < 0.05 was considered to be statistically significant. Results: No statistical difference was observed between the mean values of primary stability of the OD (ISQ: 67.06 ± 4.41) and SE (ISQ: 67.76 ± 4.79) groups (P=0.518). No statistical difference was noted between the mean values of secondary implant stability of the OD (ISQ: 68.53 ± 6.70) and SE (68 ± 5.68) groups (P=0.780). Conclusion: The OD technique is comparable with the manual SE counterpart in terms of primary and secondary stability. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: To compare the osteoblastic activity around dental implants placed via adaptive osteotomy and osseodensification techniques using bone scintigraphy in human subjects. Materials and Methods: A single-blinded, split-mouth design was conducted on two sites in each of the 10 subjects, with the adaptive osteotomy (n = 10) and osseodensification (n = 10) techniques for implant placement performed on either side of the D3-type bone in the posterior mandible. All participants were subjected to a multiphase bone scintigraphy test on the 15th, 45th, and 90th days after implant placement to evaluate the osteoblastic activity. Results: The mean values obtained on the 15th, 45th, and 90th days in the adaptive osteotomy group were 51.14% ± 3.93%, 51.40% ± 3.41%, and 50.73% ± 1.51%, respectively, while the osseodensification group values were 48.88% ± 3.94%, 48.78% ± 3.38%, and 49.29% ± 1.56%, respectively. The intragroup and intergroup analyses revealed no significant difference between the mean values of the adaptive osteotomy and osseodensification groups on the tested days (P > .05). Conclusions: Osseodensification and adaptive osteotomy techniques improved primary stability of D3-type bone and accelerated the osteoblastic activity after implant placement, with no superiority of one method over the other. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: To compare the effects of regular implant drills to osseodensifying drills used in clockwise and counterclockwise motions on bone dimension change and primary implant stability. Materials and Methods: A total of 40 bone models were made (20 × 15 × 4 mm) from porcine tibia to represent implants placed in soft bone. Implant osteotomies were prepared in the bone models using one of the following techniques: (1) regular implant drills in a clockwise direction (group A), (2) regular implant drills in a counterclockwise direction (group B), (3) osseodensifying drills in a clockwise direction (group C), and (4) osseodensifying drills in a counterclockwise direction (group D). Bone-level tapered titanium alloy implants (4.1 × 10 mm) were placed following osteotomy creation. The implant stability quotient (ISQ) was measured after implant placement. Each bone model was scanned with an optical scanner to convert to Standard Tessellation Language (STL) files before and after the osteotomy creation. Presurgical and postsurgical STL files were superimposed, and the dimensional changes were measured at 1, 3, and 7 mm from the crestal bone. Histomorphometric analysis was done, and bone-to-implant contact percentage (BIC%) was calculated. Results: There were no significant differences in ISQ values (P = .239) between any of the groups. Histomorphometric analysis showed implants in group D had significantly higher BIC% than groups A (P = .020) and B (P = .009). The amount of bone expansion decreased with distance from the crest (P < .001). Groups B (P = .039) and D (P = .001) showed significant expansions at all levels compared with group A. No other statistically significant differences in dimensional change were found between groups. Conclusion: Both regular and osseodensification burs used in a counterclockwise motion contribute to expansion of bone dimension compared to conventional drilling methods. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background/Objective: To ensure that implants are able to support prosthetic rehabilitation, a stable and functional union between the bone and the implant surface is crucial to its stability and success. To increase bone volume and density and excel bone-implant contact, a novel drilling method, called osseodensification (OD), was performed. To assess the effectiveness of the osseodensification drilling protocol versus the conventional surgical technique on implant stability. Methods: Bone Level Tapered Straumann implants were placed side-by-side with both OD and subtractive conventional drilling (SD) in 90 patients from CESPU—Famalicão clinical unit. IT was measured using a manual torque wrench, and the Implant stability quotient (ISQ) value was registered using the Osstell® IDX. Results: According to the multifactorial ANOVA, there were statistically significant differences in the mean IT values due to the arch only (F(1.270) = 4.702, p-value = 0.031 < 0.05). Regarding the length of the implant, there were statistically significant differences in the mean IT in the OD group (p = 0.041), with significantly lower mean IT values for the Regular implants compared to the Long. With respect to the arch, the analyses of the overall ISQ values showed an upward trend in both groups in the maxilla and mandible. High levels of IT also showed high ISQ values, which represent good indicators of primary stability. Conclusions: OD does not have a negative influence on osseointegration compared to conventional subtractive osteotomy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background/Objectives: The aim of this retrospective study was to radiographically evaluate the endo-sinus bone gain (ESBG) following osseodensification procedures using CBCT and compare the results to more conventional sinus lifting techniques. Methods: A total of 72 patients underwent crestal sinus floor elevation procedures and were provided with 102 implants with a sand-blasted and acid-etched surface with microthreads (Medentika® Microcone Implants, Hugelsheim, Germany). Patients were divided into two groups; the osseodensification group (OD; n = 36) and the osseodensified augmentation group (ODA; n = 36). Results: The mean residual bone height (RBH) was 5.71 (1.77) and 4.30 (0.94) mm in the OD and ODA groups, respectively. An ESBG of 3.45 (1.18) and 5.74 (1.31) mm was observed in the OD and ODA groups, respectively, and as compared to the baseline RBH, the ESBG was statistically significant in both groups after 6 months (p < 0.001). Conclusions: Within the limits of this retrospective study, crestal sinus lifting with the osseodensification technique seems to be a fast, effective, and safe method. Longer follow-up studies with full intrasinus bone topography and structure analyses are needed to prove the success rate of endo-sinus bone gain. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Osseodensification (OD) compaction increases primary stability by leaving the residual bone particles in the osteotomy site, which in turn act as an autograft.[1] Condensing the bone trabeculae through OD has demonstrated to have a potentiating influence on secondary stability.[2] Materials and Methods: A split-mouth study was conducted in 40 patients to determine the effect of OD on implant success rate in terms of primary and secondary stability in situations including immediate loading of implants placed in low-density bone, which was tested using resonance frequency analysis (RFA) at the interval of 0, 6th month. In order to assess the implant success rate, gingival probing depth and crestal bone loss (CBL) around the implant were also assessed at baseline and 6 months. Results: With respect to primary stability, at baseline, the mean RFA of Densah burs is 71.6 ± 9.5 and of conventional drills is 67.6 ± 10.4. The mean stability of Densah burs is significantly higher than conventional drills, both at baseline and after 6 months as well. CBL, at baseline, the mean CBL of Densah burs is 0.58 ± 0.11 and of conventional drills is 0.64 ± 0.12. The mean CBL of Densah burs is significantly lower than that of conventional drills for both. Conclusion: The implant stability values found in the present study were remarkable when compared between OD and conventional osteotomy techniques. Decreased loss of bone at the crest probing depth also aided in the increased success rate. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: This study aims to evaluate the effects of two drill designs on insertion torque (IT) and implant stability quotient (ISQ) during osteotomy. Methodology: This in vivo animal study involved eight female New Zealand white rabbits divided into two groups: Group A underwent osteotomy using standard drills from the Zimmer surgical kit, and Group B used Densah drills. IT values and ISQ were taken during and after implant placement. Rabbits received premedication, and postoperative care was provided. Results: Significant differences in peak IT were observed between the two groups, with Group B demonstrating a statistically significant advantage. However, no significant differences were found in ISQ between the groups. Conclusion: This study highlights the potential benefits of osseodensification in enhancing primary stability during osteotomy.

Purpose: The objective of this study was to compare the osseodensification drilling technique used with Densah implant drills (Versah) to standard drilling by evaluating their contribution to primary implant stability. Materials and Methods: A total of 21 mandibles dissected from cadavers were selected. Axiom drills (Anthogyr) were used for 29 standard drilling (SD) protocols in the control group. In the test group, the Densah profile drills were used to perform 29 osteotomies (OD). Implant placement was performed for 58 of these procedures. The insertion torque (IT) and implant stability quotient (ISQ) were recorded. High-resolution CBCT allowed for a postoperative analysis of the peri-drilling bone tissue. For 16 osteotomies without implant placement, Mann-Whitney U test was used for comparison of IT and ISQ values between groups. Spearman rank correlation coefficient was used between IT and ISQ values. The significance level was α = .05. Results: The IT values for OD and SD were, respectively, 34.9 Ncm ± 19.1 and 23.6 Ncm ± 9.8. The IT was significantly higher in the OD group compared to the SD group (P = .036). A moderate positive correlation (ρ = 0.527) between IT and ISQ was observed, as well as a significant increase (P = .026) in bone density. Conclusion: There was a significant increase in IT and bone density following an osseodensification procedure compared to standard drilling. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: To compare patient‐reported outcome measures and additional surgical outcomes after sinus floor elevation (SFE) with osseodensification (OD) versus lateral window (LW), both with simultaneous implant placement. Materials and Methods: Twenty participants requiring single‐implant rehabilitation with residual bone height (RBH) ≤4 mm were enrolled. Pain experience, quality of life (QoL) via the Oral Health Impact Profile‐14 (OHIP‐14), analgesics intake, and other symptoms were self‐reported for a week on a daily basis. Surgery duration, complications, and implant stability quotient at baseline (ISQ T0) and after 6 months (ISQ T6) were registered. Participants were followed up for 1 year. Results: From Day 0 (day of surgery) to Day 3, pain experience was significantly lower (p < 0.05) in the OD group. OHIP‐14 score was significantly lower (p < 0.05) in the OD group on all postoperative days, except on Day 5. Average analgesics intake was significantly lower (p < 0.001) in the OD group. Surgery mean duration was significantly higher (p < 0.001) in LW compared to OD (71.1 ± 10.4 vs. 32.9 ± 5.3 min). After osseointegration period, all implants were successfully restored with screw‐retained crowns. Conclusions: Within the limitations of this study, it can be concluded that OD and LW techniques were similarly effective in SFE with simultaneous implant placement when RBH ≤ 4 mm. However, OD significantly outperformed LW in pain experience, impact on self‐perceived QoL, surgery duration, postoperative edema, and analgesics intake. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Bone density at the implant site is correlated to the success of osseointegration. The objective of this in vitro study was to evaluate the efficacy of osseodensification burs in increasing bone density using a solid polyurethane foam block model. The osseodensification burs kit was used to perform 48 osteotomies on a rigid polyurethane foam test ground. Burs were utilized on a TMM2 implant motor for data collection. The osteotomies were divided into two study groups (A and C) in which implant sites, extended 12 and 14 mm deep, respectively, were prepared using the drills to a compaction rotation; two control groups, B and D, represented the osteotomies for which the drills were used in cutting direction. A 3.8 × 12 mm conical implant was inserted into each site; for each implant, data were collected on the peak torque (Cp), mean torque (Cm), and integral depth curve (I). The implants underwent resonance frequency analysis (RFA) to assess the implant stability quotient (ISQ). Correlation analysis was performed between I, Cm, Cp and ISQ. One-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to identify statistically significant differences between groups. Group C, representing osteotomies prepared at 14 mm with osseodensification burs, showed a significantly higher value for each parameter. Implants at sites obtained with osteocondensation drills and prepared at greater depth for autologous particle grafting showed significant increases in each implant stability parameter. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract Purpose To evaluate the effectiveness of using Densah burs for lifting the maxillary sinus membrane in cases with an oblique sinus floor with a residual bone height of 4–7 mm. Methods The study was conducted on 16 patients, comprising 9 males and 7 females, aged 25–60 years, split into two groups of 8 each: group I with a residual bone height of 4–5.5 mm below the sinus floor and group II with a residual bone height of 5.5–7 mm. Exclusion criteria included smokers, presence of systemic or metabolic conditions that contraindicate implant placement and a local sinus pathology. The study involved the use of Densah burs, using the osseodensification concept to elevate the sinus floor, along with simultaneous dental implant placement. The integrity of the sinus membrane was verified via clinical examination and a confirmatory cone beam computed tomography scan. Results The study revealed that out of the 16 cases, one case had a sinus membrane perforation, confirmed clinically at the time of the operation. The study achieved a mean lift of 4.42 mm and a mean final seating torque of 35.5 N/cm. At the 1-year follow-up, all cases showed clinical success, with no signs of sinus pathology or complications. Conclusions In cases with oblique sinus floors and a residual bone height of 4–7 mm in moderately atrophic posterior maxilla, the osseodensification concept proved to be a safe and effective method for performing sinus lift procedures with simultaneous implantation. Graphical Abstract

Purpose: This systematic review aimed to appraise the available evidence on the clinical characteristics produced by osseodensification drilling compared with the conventional drilling technique. Materials and Methods: Five databases (PubMed, Google Scholar, LILACS, EMBASE, and CENTRAL) were searched up to July 2020. Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) and nonrandomized studies of interventions (NRSIs) that compared osseodensification drilling with conventional drilling in humans were included. Random-effects meta-analyses of standardized mean difference (MD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) and risk ratio were performed. Results: Three NRSIs fulfilled the inclusion criteria, and all were scored as low risk of bias. Meta-analysis showed that the osseodensification drilling technique presented higher average implant stability quotient (ISQ) scores at baseline (MD: 13.1, 95% CI: 10.0 to 16.1, P < .0001) than conventional drilling, with complete homogeneity (I2 = 0.0%). Furthermore, osseodensification drilling presented higher average ISQ scores at follow-up (MD: 5.99, 95% CI: 1.3 to 10.6, P < .0001) than conventional drilling, with high homogeneity (I2 = 73.0%). Conclusion: This systematic review showed that osseodensification presented consistently higher ISQ at baseline and at 4 to 6 months after implant placement compared with conventional drilling. However, these results should be carefully interpreted since only three studies were selected in this meta-analysis. In the future, RCTs will be necessary to confirm the consistency of these results. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Osseodensification enhances the stability of endosteal implants. However, pre-clinical studies utilizing osseodensification instrumentation do not account for the limited presence of trabeculae seen clinically. This study aimed to evaluate the effect of osseodensification instrumentation on osteotomy healing in scenarios with and without the presence of trabecular bone. A ~10 cm incision was made over the hip of twelve sheep. Trabecular bone was surgically removed from twelve sites (one site/animal; negative control (Neg. Ctrl)) and left intact at twelve sites (one site/animal; experimental group (Exp.)). All osteotomies were created using the osseodensification drilling protocol. Each osteotomy received an endosteal implant and was evaluated after 3 or 12 weeks of healing (n = 6 animals/time). Histology revealed increased woven and lamellar bone surrounding the implants in the Exp. group relative to the Neg. Ctrl group. The Exp. group demonstrated the presence of bone fragments, which acted as nucleating sites, thereby enhancing the bone formation and remodeling processes. Bone-to-implant contact (%BIC) and bone area fractional occupancy (%BAFO) were significantly higher in the Exp. group relative to the Neg. Ctrl group both at 3 weeks (p = 0.009 and p = 0.043) and 12 weeks (p = 0.010 and p = 0.008). Osseodensification instrumentation in the presence of trabecular bone significantly improved osseointegration. However, no negative influences such as necrosis, inflammation, microfractures, or dehiscence were observed in the absence/limited presence of trabeculae.

Purpose: The aim of this study was to qualitatively and quantitatively assess the effect of osteotomy preparation by conventional, subtractive, or osseodensification instrumentation on osteotomies, treated with or without endosteal implants, and healing capacity. Materials and Methods: Seven sheep were used, and 56 osteotomies were made in the left and right ilium of the sheep (n = 8/sheep [4 per side/time point (3 and 6 weeks)]). Two different instrumentation techniques were used: (1) conventional/regular drilling in a three-step series of a 2-mm pilot and 3.2-mm and 3.8-mm twist drills and (2) osseodensification drilling with a Densah Bur 2.0-mm pilot and 2.8-mm and 3.8-mm multi-fluted tapered burs. Drilling was performed at 1,100 rpm with saline irrigation. Results: Qualitative histomorphometric evaluation of the osteotomies after 3 and 6 weeks did not indicate any healing impairment due to the instrumentation. In all samples, histologic examination suggested bone remodeling and growth (empty and treated with an implant), irrespective of preparation technique. Osteotomies prepared using the osseodensification instrumentation showed the existence of bone chips autografted into the trabecular spaces along the length of the osteotomy wall. Conclusion: The osseodensification group yielded higher osseointegration rates, as distinguished through qualitative assessment, bone-to-implant contact, and bone-areafraction occupancy, indicating an increased osteogenic potential in osteotomies prepared using the osseodensification technique. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Osseodensification is an innovative method of preparing the implant osteotomy using drills that promote bone self-compaction. The main objective of this technique is to promote peri-implant bone densification and compaction of autologous bone and to increase the primary stability of the implant due to the viscoelastic characteristics of the alveolar bone using Densah® burs in a counterclockwise direction at a speed of 800 to 1500 rpm. The objective of this review is the analysis of the scientific literature regarding the applicability of the osseodensification technique in oral implantology. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis guidelines were used and registered at PROSPERO. The search strategy included electronic databases from 2016 to 2023 and was performed by two independent reviewers. The results demonstrate the advantage of the osseodensification technique in relation to conventional drilling, allowing an increase in the bone density and primary stability of the implant, bone density, and bone–implant contact. The osseodensification technique can be applied in different clinical situations: sub-antral bone grafts, narrow alveolar bone crests, low-density bone areas, and immediate implant placement in post-extraction sockets. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Osseodensification is a technique that involves compressing bone using specialized drilling instruments to increase bone–implant contact. The present study aimed to evaluate the structure of a xenograft bone (XB) wall created within an implantation site and how it affects the initial stability of dental implants. Six segments of pig ribs, representing low-density bone, were used in the experiment. Four different drilling conditions were created for each section using a tapered bur system associated with bovine xenograft bone: clockwise (cutting mode—CW) or counterclockwise (densification mode—CCW). The bone samples were then placed individually in microtomography equipment to define a volume of interest (VOI) 50% larger than the osteotomy. Mathematical calculations of bone volume, trabecular thickness and separation, and total porosity were performed. An implant with a diameter of 4.0 mm and a length of 11.5 mm was then inserted into each osteotomy. The final insertion torque (IT) and resonance frequency analysis/implant stability quotient (ISQ) values were recorded. The groups were compared using ANOVA and Tukey's post hoc test. The results show that the use of xenograft bone produced densification at the apex region, with higher bone volume and trabecular thickness, and reduced trabecular separation compared with the CW group (p < 0.05). The CW + XB group demonstrated a similar porosity to the CCW group and similar values of IT and ISQ (p > 0.05). Compared with the other groups, CCW + XB exhibited the lowest percentual porosity and the highest values of IT and ISQ (p < 0.05). We concluded that the use of a xenograft bone wall before implant placement can improve the primary stability of dental implants. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: To evaluate the effectiveness of using Densah burs for lifting the maxillary sinus membrane in cases with an oblique sinus floor with a residual bone height of 4–7 mm. Methods: The study was conducted on 16 patients, comprising 9 males and 7 females, aged 25–60 years, split into two groups of 8 each: group I with a residual bone height of 4–5.5 mm below the sinus floor and group II with a residual bone height of 5.5–7 mm. Exclusion criteria included smokers, presence of systemic or metabolic conditions that contraindicate implant placement and a local sinus pathology. The study involved the use of Densah burs, using the osseodensification concept to elevate the sinus floor, along with simultaneous dental implant placement. The integrity of the sinus membrane was verified via clinical examination and a confirmatory cone beam computed tomography scan. Results: The study revealed that out of the 16 cases, one case had a sinus membrane perforation, confirmed clinically at the time of the operation. The study achieved a mean lift of 4.42 mm and a mean final seating torque of 35.5 N/cm. At the 1-year follow-up, all cases showed clinical success, with no signs of sinus pathology or complications. Conclusions: In cases with oblique sinus floors and a residual bone height of 4–7 mm in moderately atrophic posterior maxilla, the osseodensification concept proved to be a safe and effective method for performing sinus lift procedures with simultaneous implantation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

To compare the amount of bone expansion, bone density change, and implant primary stability with an osseodensification technique to a conventional drilling protocol. Materials and Methods: Twenty-four bovine rib segments (20 × 25 × 4 mm) with a 1-mm outer layer of cortical bone were randomly divided into two groups: an osseodensification group and a conventional drilling group. Each bone sample received one 4.1 × 10–mm implant. The density of the peri-implant bone before and after osteotomy was measured. After implant placement, primary stability was assessed. A laser surface scanner was used before and after implant placement to compare the dimension of crestal bone width and volumetric expansion. Histomorphometric analysis was performed to compare the bone-to-implant contact percentage (BIC%) of the two groups. Results: The peripheral and apical bone mineral density around the implants was significantly increased, and a statistically significantly higher peripheral BIC% was found in the osseodensification group. A significant increase in volume and bone width after implant placement was found in both groups. However, there were no significant differences in volume and bone width change at all three locations and in implant stability between the osseodensification and conventional drilling protocols. Conclusion: Within the limitations of this study, the osseodensification protocol increased the bone mineral density and primary bone-to-implant contact. Also, this study suggests that implant placement by osseodensification or conventional drilling can increase ridge dimensions in narrow alveolar ridges. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Primary stability is an important factor in influencing the outcome of dental implants. Osteotomy modification techniques mentioned, include osteotomes for bone condensation, under-preparation of osteotomy and Osseodensification (OD). The objective of our twin arm study was to assess how two different implant designs respond to conventional osteotomy drilling and how these values obtained compare with OD. Materials and methods: The study comprised a total of 80 implants inserted in pig tibia bone. Group 1a (n = 20) consisted of tapered internal implants and group 1b (n = 20) consisted of tapered pro implants, both inserted with conventional drilling. Group 2a (n = 20) consisted of tapered internal implants and group 2b (n = 20) consisted of tapered pro implants, both inserted with OD. Each implant inserted was measured for implant stability quotient (ISQ), insertion torque and removal torque. Results: Group 1a showed a significantly lower ISQ, mean insertion and removal torque and as compared to Group 1b. Group 2a and 2b had comparable mean values for all the three parameters. Inter-group comparison showed a higher ISQ and insertion torque value for group 2 than group 1. Intra-group assessment showed a significantly lower value for all parameters for sub-group a than b. Conclusions: OD enhances primary stability of implants in bone; but when no OD is used, the tapered pro implant design offers a better primary stability. This may be attributed to the active thread design.

Primary stability is an important factor for dental implant success. In the past years, a new method for bone site preparation was introduced, named osseodensification (OD). OD produces a condensation of the trabecular portion of the bone, increasing bone-to-implant contact and primary stability. This study aims to compare the effect of OD in cylindrical and conical implants to conventional instrumentation. A total of forty implants, divided into four groups, were placed in porcine tibia: cylindrical conventional (1a), cylindrical OD (1b), conical conventional (2a) and conical OD (2b). Each implant was measured for implant stability quotient (ISQ), insertion torque (IT) and removal torque (RT). Group 2b showed the higher values for each of the evaluated parameters; groups 1b and 2b showed better results than 1a and 2a, respectively. Regarding the IT and RT, group 1b achieved higher values than group 2a, but not for ISQ. The inter-group comparison showed significant difference between groups 1a vs 2a, 1a vs 2b and 1b vs 2b for ISQ and 1a vs 1b and 1a vs 2b for RT analysis. OD resulted in improved ISQ, IT and RT of both cylindrical and conical implants. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This study evaluated dental implant stability, vertical bone gain, bone density, and crestal bone loss using different crestal sinus lift techniques (osteotomy, Densah burs, and piezosurgery). A total of 21 patients were randomly divided into three groups: Group 1: patients were treated using a Densah drill crestal sinus lift, Group 2: patients were treated using a piezoelectric crestal sinus lift and Group 3: patients were treated using an osteotome crestal sinus lift. The patients in all three groups underwent bone grafting and implant placement. An Osstell device was used to determine the implant stability by recording the values of the implant stability quotient (ISQ). CBCT was performed before and 6 months after implant placement for radiographic evaluation and comparison among the groups. All dental implants were completely successful, and statistically significant differences from baseline to 6 months were noted in all groups (p < 0.05). The Densah burs technique resulted in the best implant stability of all groups, while the osteotome technique demonstrated better vertical bone augmentation. However, the values for bone density and crestal bone loss showed no significant difference among all treated groups (p > 0.05). All three techniques were successful for crestal sinus lifts with good clinical outcomes at a 6-month follow-up. The Densah group demonstrated better implant stability, shorter surgery time, and fewer complications; however, the vertical bone gain was greater with the osteotome technique. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Journal of Advanced Research in Health Sciences (JARHS) / Sağlık Bilimlerinde İleri Araştırmalar Dergisi (SABİAD) is the property of Journal of Advanced Research in Health Sciences (JARHS) and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Purpose: To evaluate the efficacy of Versah drills in breaching the maxillary sinus floor while keeping the membrane intact, as well as measure the implant stability (primary stability at the time of implant placement by the osseous densification of the residual bone height (RBH) of ≥ 2.0 _ < 6.0 mm, and secondary stability after 6 months of osseous healing period). Methods: This prospective clinical study, which included twenty crestal sinus floor elevations, was conducted on 17 patients (10 males and 7 females, ages 29 to 70 years). The sinus membrane integrity was clinically checked at the time of osseodensification sinus lifting and confirmed by CBCT after sinus augmentation and implant insertion. Time of operation has been recorded from the first drill to implant installation. Primary implant stability was measured using an Osstell beacon at the time of implant placement, and secondary stability was measured after 6 months of osseous healing. Results: The mean of secondary stability in the current study is significantly higher than the mean of primary stability (P ≤ 0.011), which was 74.22 ± 8.11 and 69.85 ± 9.74, respectively, in RBH 3.81 mm as a mean. There was no clinical evidence of membrane perforation or complication reports, and the average operation time was 11.2 ± 1.85 min. Conclusion: The current study found that at highly atrophic posterior maxilla with a residual bone height of ≥ 2.0 _ < 6.0 mm, osseodensification using Versah drills was effective in crestal sinus elevation with no membrane perforation, which was confirmed by cone-beam CT scan postoperatively, and showed higher primary and secondary implant stability. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Osseodensification is a novel technique based on nonsubtractive drilling to preserve and condense bone during osteotomy preparation. The aim of this ex vivo study was to compare osseodensification and conventional extraction drilling technique with regard to intraosseous temperatures, expansion of alveolar ridge width, and primary implant stability using different implant geometries: tapered and straight walled. A total of 45 implant sites were prepared in bovine ribs following osseodensification and conventional protocols. Changes in intraosseous temperatures were recorded at 3 depths using thermocouples, and ridge width was measured at 2 different depths before and after osseodensification preparations. The primary implant stability was measured using peak insertion torque and the implant stability quotient (ISQ) following placement of straight and tapered implants. A significant change in temperature was recorded during site preparation for all techniques tested but not at all depths. Osseodensification recorded higher mean temperatures (42.7°C) than conventional drilling, particularly at the midroot level. Statistically significant ridge expansion was observed at both the crestal and apical levels in the osseodensification group. The ISQ values were significantly higher only for tapered implants placed in osseodensification sites when compared with conventional drilling sites; however, there was no difference in the primary stability between tapered and straight implants within the osseodensification group. Within the limitations of the present pilot study, osseodensification was found to increase the primary stability of straight-walled implants without overheating the bone and significantly expanded the ridge width. However, further investigation is required to determine the clinical significance of the bone expansion created by this new technique. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Bone density at the implant site is correlated to the success of osseointegration. The objective of this in vitro study was to evaluate the efficacy of osseodensification burs in increasing bone density using a solid polyurethane foam block model. The osseodensification burs kit was used to perform 48 osteotomies on a rigid polyurethane foam test ground. Burs were utilized on a TMM2 implant motor for data collection. The osteotomies were divided into two study groups (A and C) in which implant sites, extended 12 and 14 mm deep, respectively, were prepared using the drills to a compaction rotation; two control groups, B and D, represented the osteotomies for which the drills were used in cutting direction. A 3.8 × 12 mm conical implant was inserted into each site; for each implant, data were collected on the peak torque (Cp), mean torque (Cm), and integral depth curve (I). The implants underwent resonance frequency analysis (RFA) to assess the implant stability quotient (ISQ). Correlation analysis was performed between I, Cm, Cp and ISQ. One-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to identify statistically significant differences between groups. Group C, representing osteotomies prepared at 14 mm with osseodensification burs, showed a significantly higher value for each parameter. Implants at sites obtained with osteocondensation drills and prepared at greater depth for autologous particle grafting showed significant increases in each implant stability parameter.

Primary stability is an important factor in influencing the outcome of dental implants. Osteotomy modification techniques mentioned, include osteotomes for bone condensation, under-preparation of osteotomy and Osseodensification (OD). The objective of our twin arm study was to assess how two different implant designs respond to conventional osteotomy drilling and how these values obtained compare with OD. The study comprised a total of 80 implants inserted in pig tibia bone. Group 1a (n = 20) consisted of tapered internal implants and group 1b (n = 20) consisted of tapered pro implants, both inserted with conventional drilling. Group 2a (n = 20) consisted of tapered internal implants and group 2b (n = 20) consisted of tapered pro implants, both inserted with OD. Each implant inserted was measured for implant stability quotient (ISQ), insertion torque and removal torque. Group 1a showed a significantly lower ISQ, mean insertion and removal torque and as compared to Group 1b. Group 2a and 2b had comparable mean values for all the three parameters. Inter-group comparison showed a higher ISQ and insertion torque value for group 2 than group 1. Intra-group assessment showed a significantly lower value for all parameters for sub-group a than b. OD enhances primary stability of implants in bone; but when no OD is used, the tapered pro implant design offers a better primary stability. This may be attributed to the active thread design. [Display omitted] [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Implant stability is influenced by bone density, implant design, and site preparation characteristics. Piezoelectric implant site preparation (PISP) has been demonstrated to improve secondary stability compared with conventional drilling techniques. Osseodensification drills (OD) have been recently introduced to enhance both bone density and implant secondary stability. The objective of the present multi‐center prospective randomized controlled trial was to monitor implant stability changes over the first 90 days of healing after implant bed preparation with OD or PISP. Methods: Each patient received two identical, adjacent or contralateral implants in the posterior maxilla. Following randomization, test sites were prepared with OD and control sites with PISP. Resonance frequency analysis was performed immediately after implant placement and after 7, 14, 21, 28, 60, and 90 days. Implants were then restored with single screw‐retained metal‐ceramic crowns and followed for 12 months after loading. Results: Twenty‐seven patients (15 males and 12 females; mean age 63.0 ± 11.8 years) were included in final analysis. Each patient received two identical implants in the posterior maxilla (total = 54 implants). After 1 year of loading, 53 implants were satisfactorily in function (one failure in test group 28 days after placement). Mean peak insertion torque (40.7 ± 12.3 Ncm and 39.5 ± 10.2 Ncm in test and control group, respectively) and mean implant stability quotient (ISQ) value at baseline (71.3 ± 6.9 and 69.3 ± 7.6 in test and control group, respectively) showed no significant differences between the two groups. After an initial slight stability decrease, a shift to increasing ISQ values occurred after 14 days in control group and after 21 days in test group, but with no significant differences in ISQ values between the two groups during the first 90 days of healing. Conclusion: No significant differences in either primary or secondary stability or implant survival rate after 1 year of loading were demonstrated between implants inserted into sites prepared with OD and PISP. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract Background Implant installation with conventional drilling can create buccal bone defects in areas of limited ridge thickness. Implant installation with osseodensification may aid in preventing buccal bone defects in these situations. This in vitro pilot study evaluated the impact of osseodensification on the increase in alveolar ridge thickness and the prevention of buccal peri-implant defects. Methods Ten fresh pig mandibles with limited bone thickness were selected for use in an experimental randomized split mouth pilot study. Two site-preparation protocols were used: conventional drilling with cutting burs (CTL, n = 10) and osseodensification with Densah® burs (OD, n = 10). After implant bed preparation, 20 implants (4.5 × 10 mm) were placed in the prepared sites and the insertion torque was recorded. Clinical and photographic analysis evaluated ridge thickness and the extent (height, width, and area) of bone defects in the buccal and lingual bone walls following implant placement. Three-dimensional measurements were performed using STL files to analyze the increase in buccal ridge thickness following site preparation and implant placement. The height of the buccal bone defect was considered as the primary outcome of this study. Defect width, area, implant insertion torque, and linear buccal ridge increase after implant site preparation and installation were also assessed. Non-parametric evaluations were carried out with the Mann–Whitney test to verify intergroup differences. Results There was no statistically significant difference between groups in the baseline ridge thickness. OD presented a significantly higher insertion torque, associated with reduced buccal and lingual bone defect width, in comparison to CTL. Conclusions The increase in buccal ridge thickness after site preparation and implant placement was significantly higher in OD compared to CTL. Osseodensification increased the ridge thickness through expansion and reduced buccal bone defects after implant installation.

The aim of the present systematic review was to compare three ridge augmentation procedures in order to assist clinicians in finding the ideal surgical method relative to the horizontal bone gain needed and the width of the alveolar ridge available. An electronic and hand literature search was performed in the online databases PubMed-Medline, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, EMBASE, Cochrane Oral Health Group Trials Register and Web of Science, and various specialized journals, between January 2017 and December 2022. The included studies were evaluated using the Methodological Index for Non-randomized Studies score and Cochrane's RoB tool. The primary variable studied in the meta-analysis was the final bone gain. The implant survival rate and initial ridge width were the secondary variables. Then four studies on ridge expansion via osseodensification (OD), seven on guided bone regeneration (GBR) and seven on the ridge-split technique (RS) were included in the review; 17 out of 18 were selected for meta-analysis. The mean horizontal bone gain for OD was 2.151 mm [1.327-2.975 mm; 95% confidence interval (CI)], for GBR was 4.036 mm (3.351-4.772 mm 95%CI) and for RS was 3.661 mm (2.991-4.399 mm 95%CI). The results were statistically significant (P=0.002). GBR reported the most bone gain horizontally, followed closely by RS and then OD. OD is a recent technique that should be taken into account when discussing the protocols of horizontally atrophied ridge rehabilitation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Osseodensification is a technique that involves compressing bone using specialized drilling instruments to increase bone–implant contact. The present study aimed to evaluate the structure of a xenograft bone (XB) wall created within an implantation site and how it affects the initial stability of dental implants. Six segments of pig ribs, representing low-density bone, were used in the experiment. Four different drilling conditions were created for each section using a tapered bur system associated with bovine xenograft bone: clockwise (cutting mode—CW) or counterclockwise (densification mode—CCW). The bone samples were then placed individually in microtomography equipment to define a volume of interest (VOI) 50% larger than the osteotomy. Mathematical calculations of bone volume, trabecular thickness and separation, and total porosity were performed. An implant with a diameter of 4.0 mm and a length of 11.5 mm was then inserted into each osteotomy. The final insertion torque (IT) and resonance frequency analysis/implant stability quotient (ISQ) values were recorded. The groups were compared using ANOVA and Tukey’s post hoc test. The results show that the use of xenograft bone produced densification at the apex region, with higher bone volume and trabecular thickness, and reduced trabecular separation compared with the CW group (p < 0.05). The CW + XB group demonstrated a similar porosity to the CCW group and similar values of IT and ISQ (p > 0.05). Compared with the other groups, CCW + XB exhibited the lowest percentual porosity and the highest values of IT and ISQ (p < 0.05). We concluded that the use of a xenograft bone wall before implant placement can improve the primary stability of dental implants.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of the present study was to evaluate and compare primary and secondary implant stability of conical endosteal implants placed using osseodensification osteotomy and conventional osteotomy techniques. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The present invivo study was designed as a prospective, observational study in which a total of 26 endosteal implants were placed in the posterior edentulous regions of upper and lower jaws in 13 patients divided into two groups, Group A and Group B. In Group A, implants were placed using osseodensification osteotomy technique while in Group B, conventional osteotomy technique was used. Primary implant stability was measured in both groups immediately after implant placement while secondary implant stability was measured in both groups at an interval of 4 months. Statistical analysis was done using Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) version 20.00 (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL, USA) while an independent t-test, also, called Student's t-test was used to conduct the analysis. RESULTS: The mean value of primary implant stability in Group A was found to be 74.5 as against that in Group B which was 62.08 (P-value 0.001). Likewise, the mean value of secondary implant stability in Group A after 4 months' interval was 70.92 while in Group B, it was found to be 63.69 (P-value 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: The dental implants placed with the osseodensification technique showed higher mean primary and secondary implant stability values when compared to implants placed by the conventional technique. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Robotic systems have revolutionized various industries, and dentistry is no exception. Recently, due to the robust advancements in artificial intelligence and technology, there has been a significant evolution of dental robotic systems, ranging from surgeon-controlled and robot-assisted operations to more autonomous processes. The present clinical case report describes a 1-year follow-up of the successful use of an autonomous dental implant robot system with an osseodensification protocol for implant osteotomy preparation, maxillary sinus elevation, and simultaneous implant placement at the maxillary second premolar site. A prefabricated provisional prosthesis was delivered immediately after implant placement, with final prosthesis delivery at 3 months. The findings from this report demonstrate the integration and clinical augmentation of more autonomous protocols in the field of implant dentistry using dental robots.

Purpose: It is essential to have sufficient bone bulk and density at the implant site in order to achieve good bone-to-implant contact and primary stability, which are crucial for osseointegration. A new osteotomy preparation technique was recently introduced that uses a bone preservation method that creates a layer of compacted bone along the surface of the osteotomy. The hypothesis of this study was that this novel technique would increase primary implant stability, bone mineral density, and the percentage of bone at the implant surface compared with drilling technique. Materials and Methods: A total of 72 osteotomies were created in porcine tibial plateau bone samples using three preparation techniques: standard drilling; osseous extraction drilling with a new tapered, multi-fluted bur design; and osseous densification with the same multi-fluted bur rotating in a reversed direction that preserved and created a compacted layer of bone. The surgical process (temperature increase, drilling force, and torque), mechanical stability during the insertion and removal of 4.1-mm and 6.0-mm diameter implants (implant torque and stability quotient), and bone imaging (scanning electron microscopy, microcomputed tomography measurement of bone mineral density, and histomorphology) were compared among the three preparation techniques. Results: Osseous densification significantly increased insertion and removal torques compared to standard drilling or extraction drilling. No significant differences in implant stability quotient readings or temperature increases were demonstrated among the three groups. Although the same bur was used for extraction drilling and osseous densification techniques, the osseous densification osteotomy diameters were smaller than both the extraction drilling and standard drilling osteotomies due to the spring-back effect of bone elastic strain created. Imaging methods documented a layer of increased bone mineral density around the periphery of osseous densification osteotomies. The percentage of bone at the implant surface was increased by approximately three times for implants prepared with osseous densification compared with standard drilling. Conclusion: This study confirmed the hypothesis that the osseous densification technique would increase primary stability, bone mineral density, and the percentage of bone at the implant surface compared with drilling. By preserving bulk bone, it is hypothesized that the healing process will be accelerated due to the bone matrix, cells, and biochemicals that are maintained in situ and autografted along the surface of the osteotomy site. The healing response requires further study in vivo. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This study evaluated dental implant stability, vertical bone gain, bone density, and crestal bone loss using different crestal sinus lift techniques (osteotomy, Densah burs, and piezosurgery). A total of 21 patients were randomly divided into three groups: Group 1: patients were treated using a Densah drill crestal sinus lift, Group 2: patients were treated using a piezoelectric crestal sinus lift and Group 3: patients were treated using an osteotome crestal sinus lift. The patients in all three groups underwent bone grafting and implant placement. An Osstell device was used to determine the implant stability by recording the values of the implant stability quotient (ISQ). CBCT was performed before and 6 months after implant placement for radiographic evaluation and comparison among the groups. All dental implants were completely successful, and statistically significant differences from baseline to 6 months were noted in all groups (p < 0.05). The Densah burs technique resulted in the best implant stability of all groups, while the osteotome technique demonstrated better vertical bone augmentation. However, the values for bone density and crestal bone loss showed no significant difference among all treated groups (p > 0.05). All three techniques were successful for crestal sinus lifts with good clinical outcomes at a 6-month follow-up. The Densah group demonstrated better implant stability, shorter surgery time, and fewer complications; however, the vertical bone gain was greater with the osteotome technique.

Background: Implant installation with conventional drilling can create buccal bone defects in areas of limited ridge thickness. Implant installation with osseodensification may aid in preventing buccal bone defects in these situations. This in vitro pilot study evaluated the impact of osseodensification on the increase in alveolar ridge thickness and the prevention of buccal peri-implant defects. Methods: Ten fresh pig mandibles with limited bone thickness were selected for use in an experimental randomized split mouth pilot study. Two site-preparation protocols were used: conventional drilling with cutting burs (CTL, n = 10) and osseodensification with Densah® burs (OD, n = 10). After implant bed preparation, 20 implants (4.5 × 10 mm) were placed in the prepared sites and the insertion torque was recorded. Clinical and photographic analysis evaluated ridge thickness and the extent (height, width, and area) of bone defects in the buccal and lingual bone walls following implant placement. Three-dimensional measurements were performed using STL files to analyze the increase in buccal ridge thickness following site preparation and implant placement. The height of the buccal bone defect was considered as the primary outcome of this study. Defect width, area, implant insertion torque, and linear buccal ridge increase after implant site preparation and installation were also assessed. Non-parametric evaluations were carried out with the Mann–Whitney test to verify intergroup differences. Results: There was no statistically significant difference between groups in the baseline ridge thickness. OD presented a significantly higher insertion torque, associated with reduced buccal and lingual bone defect width, in comparison to CTL. Conclusions: The increase in buccal ridge thickness after site preparation and implant placement was significantly higher in OD compared to CTL. Osseodensification increased the ridge thickness through expansion and reduced buccal bone defects after implant installation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]