We are using cookies to implement functions like login, shopping cart or language selection for this website and to create anonymized statistical reports of the usage. You will find more information in our privacy policy. By continuing to use our website, you agree to this. Yes, I agree
European Journal of Oral Implantology
Login:
username:

password:

Plattform:

Forgotten password?

Registration

Eur J Oral Implantol 8 (2015), No. 3     15. Sep. 2015
Eur J Oral Implantol 8 (2015), No. 3  (15.09.2015)

Page 283-290, PubMed:26355172


Implant site preparation using a single bur versus multiple drilling steps: 4-month post-loading results of a multicenter randomised controlled trial
Guazzi, Paolo / Grandi, Tommaso / Grandi, Giovanni
Purpose: To compare the clinical outcome of implants inserted in sites prepared with a simplified protocol consisting of one single drill versus multiple conventional drilling steps.
Materials and methods: In two private clinics, 40 patients, requiring one single implant and having a residual bone height of at least 10 mm and a thickness of at least 5 mm measured on computerised tomography (CT) scans, were randomised after flap elevation to have the implant site prepared using a single drilling step with a newly designed tapered-cylinder drill (1-drill group) or a conventional procedure with multiple drills (multiple-drill group). Implants were left to heal non-submerged for 3 months and then they were loaded with a final metal-ceramic crown. Outcome measures were: implant failure; any complications; peri-implant marginal bone level changes assessed by a blinded outcome assessor; operation time; operator preference and post-surgical pain, swelling and analgesic consumption. All patients were followed up to 4 months after implant loading.
Results: Twenty patients were randomised to the 1-drill group and 20 patients to the multiple-drill group. No implant failed and no complications occurred. Four months after loading, implants in the 1-drill group lost 0.54 mm of peri-implant bone versus 0.41 mm for the implants in the multiple-drill group. There were no statistically significant differences for marginal bone level changes between the two groups (difference 0.13 mm, 95% CI -0.21; 0.47, P = 0.108). Less time which was statistically significant (3.66 mins, 95% CI 2.69; 4.63, P < 0.0001) was required to place the implant with the single bur. Both operators always preferred the single bur technique. Postoperatively, patients in the 1-drill group vs patients in the multiple-drill group reported statistically significant differences for pain level (difference 27.5, 95% CI 3.3; 51.7, P < 0.0001), number of days in which the swelling persisted (difference 3.4, 95% CI 2.4; 4.4, P < 0.0001) and the number of analgesic drugs taken (difference 2.8, 95% CI 1.4; 4.2, P < 0.0001)
Conclusions: Within the limits of this trial, both drilling techniques produced successful results over a 4-month post-loading follow-up period, but the single bur procedure required less surgical time and lead to less postoperative morbidity.

Keywords: dental implants, drill design, implant site preparation, single bur
fulltext (no access granted) order article as PDF-file (20.00 €)