Email Alert | RSS

Journal of Peking University(Health Sciences) ›› 2020, Vol. 52 ›› Issue (1): 103-106. doi: 10.19723/j.issn.1671-167X.2020.01.016

Previous Articles     Next Articles

Study on bone volume harvested from the implant sites with different methods

Wei-ting LI,Peng LI(),Mu-zi PIAO,Fang ZHANG,Jie DI   

  1. Second Clinical Division, Peking University School and Hospital of Stomatology & National Clinical Research Center for Oral Diseases & National Engineering Laboratory for Digital and Material Technology of Stomatology & Beijing Key Laboratory of Digital Stomatology, Beijing 100101, China
  • Received:2018-10-07 Online:2020-02-18 Published:2020-02-20
  • Contact: Peng LI E-mail:kqlipeng05420533@sina.com

RICH HTML

   

PDF (PC)

Abstract:

Objective: To compare the volume of autogenous bone particles harvested utilizing different techniques and various implant systems during implant surgery, and to determine the advantageous method to collect autogenous bone particles. Methods: Homogeneous epoxy resin simulated jaw bone model was enrolled. Bicon, Bego implant systems and Straumann tissue level implant systems were utilized. The two techniques were investigated. One method was low-speed drilling (50 r/min) without water irri-gating, and the other one was drilling with cold water irrigating to the ideal depth, then closing the water and drilling out with low speed (50 r/min). The bone particles in the drill groove and implant beds were collected. The volumes of the bone harvested were compared between the different techniques and also among the three implant systems, then they were compared with the volume of the bone harvested by the special bone drill. The sample size of each sub-group was 10. The bone particles were weighed by electronic balance after drying. Results: The harvested bone volume between the latch reamers and hand reamers of Bicon system with the first method was not significantly different. When the same size implant bed was prepared, the volume of the bone particles produced during the implant surgery with low-speed drill without water was significantly higher than that with the other method no matter Bicon [3.5 mm×10 mm hole for example (28.42±6.04) mg vs. (6.30±2.51) mg, P<0.001] or Bego system [2.8 mm×10 mm hole for example (28.95±5.39) mg vs. (4.61±3.39) mg, P<0.001] was used, and the ratio of bone volume between the first method and the second one was approximately 3.3 to 7.0 times. When using the second method to prepare the similar size implant bed, the bone volume was not significant different among Bicon, Bego and Straumann implant systems [Bicon (9.90±3.42) mg, Bego (8.70±4.09) mg, and Straumann (10.56±5.66) mg, P=0.69]. When preparing a 5mm-diameter-10mm-length hole with Bicon implant system and a 4.7mm-diameter-10mm-length with Bego implant system, the bone quantity harvested from each group was less than that harvested by special bone drill from Neo Biotech [Bicon (82.54±12.26) mg, Bego (85.07±12.64) mg vs. Neo Biotech (96.78±13.19) mg, P<0.05]. Conclusion: More autogenous bone can be harvested from implant beds by preparing with low-speed rolling without water than the method with water irrigation. When utilizing the same preparing method, the implant system has no impact on the volume of the bone harvested.

Key words: Dental implantation, Bone graft, Autogenous bone

CLC Number: 

  • R783.3

Table 1

Comparison of the harvest bone volume between latch reamers and hand reamers of Bicon system with low-speed drill without water irrigation"

Diameter of hole/mm Latch reamers/mg Hand reamers/mg P
3.0 17.71±3.58 16.95±4.48 0.680
3.5 29.16±4.99 28.42±6.04 0.769
4.0 42.35±7.68 45.91±8.23 0.331
4.5 57.56±10.76 60.10±9.57 0.584
5.0 77.56±14.29 82.54±12.26 0.414

Table 2

Comparison of harvest bone volume between two preparing methods with Bicon system"

Diameter of
hole/mm		 High speed with
irrigation then low speed
without irrigation/mg		 Low speed
without irrigation/mg		 P
3.0 4.18±1.86 16.95±4.48 <0.001
3.5 6.30±2.51 28.42±6.04 <0.001
4.0 9.90±3.42 45.91±8.23 <0.001
4.5 14.08±5.94 60.10±9.57 <0.001
5.0 24.59±15.50 82.54±12.26 <0.001

Table 3

Comparison of harvest bone volume between two preparing methods with Bego system"

Diameter
of hole/mm		 High speed with
irrigation then low speed
without irrigation/mg		 Low speed
without irrigation/mg		 P
2.8 4.61±3.39 28.95±5.39 <0.001
3.25 5.57±3.75 39.54±7.03 <0.001
3.65 6.92±3.77 48.44±8.14 <0.001
4.0 8.70±4.09 58.45±7.68 <0.001
4.7 13.67±5.53 85.07±12.64 <0.001

Table 4

Comparison the harvest bone volume among different implant system with high speed drill with irrigation then low speed without irrigation method"

Diameter of
hole/mm		 Bicon
system/mg		 Bego
system/mg		 Straumann
system/mg		 P
2.8-3.0 4.18±1.86 4.61±3.39 2.96±1.54 0.288
3.5-3.75 6.30±2.51 6.92±3.77 5.18±1.80 0.406
4.0-4.2 9.90±3.42 8.70±4.09 10.56±5.66 0.692

Table 5

Comparison of the bone volume harvested with different methods"

Variable Bicon system/mg Bego system/mg Neo biotech drill/mg
Bone volume 82.54±12.26 85.07±12.64 96.78±13.19*#
[1] Stern A, Barzani G . Autogenous bone harvest for implant reconstruction[J]. Dent Clin North Am, 2015,59(2):409-420.
[2] Matsubara T, Suardita K, Ishii M , et al. Alveolar bone marrow as a cell source for regenerative medicine: differences between alveolar and iliac bone marrow stromal cells[J]. J Bone Miner Res, 2005,20(3):399-409.
[3] Stellingsma K, Bouma J, Stegenga B , et al. Satisfaction and psychosocial aspects of patients with an extremely resorbed mandible treated with implant-retained overdentures.A prospective,comparative study[J]. Clin Oral Implants Res, 2003,14(2):166-172.
[4] Anitua E, Carda C, Andia I . A novel drilling procedure and subsequent bone autograft preparation: a technical note[J]. Int J Oral Maxillofacial Implants, 2007,22(1):138-145.
[5] Manzano-Moreno FJ, Rodríguezmartínez JB, Ramos-Torrecillas J , et al. Proliferation and osteogenic differentiation of osteoblast-like cells obtained from two techniques for harvesting intraoral bone grafts[J]. Clin Oral Investigat, 2013,17(5):1349-1356.
[6] Oh JH, Fang Y, Jeong SM et al. The effect of low-speed drilling without irrigation on heat generation: an experimental study[J]. J Korean Assoc Oral Maxillofac Surg, 2016,42(1):9-12.
[7] Kim SJ, Yoo J, Kim YS , et al. Temperature change in pig rib bone during implant site preparation by low-speed drilling[J]. J Appl Oral Sci, 2010,18(5):522-527.
[8] Coelho PG, Suzuki M, Guimaraes MV , et al. Early bone healing around different implant bulk designs and surgical techniques: A study in dogs[J]. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res, 2010,12(3):202-208.
[9] Anitua E, Prado R, Orive G . A lateral approach for sinus elevation using PRGF technology[J]. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res, 2009,11(Suppl 1):e23-31.
[10] Liang C, Lin X, Wang SL , et al. Osteogenic potential of three different autogenous bone particles harvested during implant surgery[J]. Oral Dis, 2017,23(8):1099-1108.
[11] Miron RJ, Zhang Q, Sculean A , et al. Osteoinductive potential of 4 commonly employed bone grafts[J]. Clin Oral Investig, 2016,20(8):2259-2265.
[12] Meloni SM, Jovanovic SA, Urban I , et al. Horizontal ridge augmentation using GBR with a native collagen membrane and 1 ∶1 ratio of particulated xenograft and autologous bone: a 1-year prospective clinical study[J]. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res, 2017,19(1):38-45.
[13] Benic GI, Bernasconi M, Jung RE , et al. Clinical and radiographic intra-subject comparison of implants placed with or without guided bone regeneration: 15-year results[J]. J Clin Periodontol, 2017,44(3):315-325.
[14] Jensen SS, Broggini N, Hjørting-Hansen E , et al. Bone healing and graft resorption of autograft, anorganic bovine bone and beta-tricalcium phosphate. a histologic and histomorphometric study in the mandibles of minipigs[J]. Clin Oral Implants Res, 2006,17(3):237-243.
[15] Fu JH, Wang HL . Horizontal bone augmentation: the decision tree[J]. Int J Periodont Restorat Dent, 2011,31(4):429-436.
[1] Xiaoqiang LIU,Yin ZHOU. Risk factors of perioperative hypertension in dental implant surgeries with bone augmentation [J]. Journal of Peking University (Health Sciences), 2024, 56(1): 93-98.
[2] Meng-en OU,Yun DING,Wei-feng TANG,Yong-sheng ZHOU. Three-dimensional finite element analysis of cement flow in abutment margin-crown platform switching [J]. Journal of Peking University (Health Sciences), 2023, 55(3): 548-552.
[3] WANG Juan,YU Hua-jie,SUN Jing-de,QIU Li-xin. Application evaluation of prefabricated rigid connecting bar in implants immediate impression preparation of edentulous jaw [J]. Journal of Peking University (Health Sciences), 2022, 54(1): 187-192.
[4] LIU Xiao-qiang,YANG Yang,ZHOU Jian-feng,LIU Jian-zhang,TAN Jian-guo. Blood pressure and heart rate changes of 640 single dental implant surgeries [J]. Journal of Peking University (Health Sciences), 2021, 53(2): 390-395.
[5] Ke-yi HAO,Jia LUO,Ping DI,Hou-zuo GUO,Hui-dan SHEN,Yan-ping LIU,Yu ZHANG,Ye LIN. Validation of the digital integration technology for evaluating the nasolabial morphology variation after the cross-arch fixed restoration of maxillary implant-supported prostheses [J]. Journal of Peking University (Health Sciences), 2020, 52(5): 924-930.
[6] Fei LI,Jing QIAO,Jin-yu DUAN,Yong ZHANG,Xiu-jing WANG. Effect of concentrated growth factors combined with guided tissue regeneration in treatment of classⅡ furcation involvements of mandibular molars [J]. Journal of Peking University (Health Sciences), 2020, 52(2): 346-352.
[7] Qiang LUO,Qian DING,Lei ZHANG,Qiu-fei XIE. Quantitative analysis of occlusal changes in posterior partial fixed implant supported prostheses [J]. Journal of Peking University(Health Sciences), 2019, 51(6): 1119-1123.
[8] CHAI Jin-you, LIU Jian-zhang, WANG Bing, QU Jian, SUN Zhen, GAO Wen-hui, GUO Tian-hao, FENG Hai-lan, PAN Shao-xia. Evaluation of the fabrication deviation of a kind of milling digital implant surgical guides#br# [J]. Journal of Peking University(Health Sciences), 2018, 50(5): 892-898.
[9] WU Min-jie, ZOU Li-dong, LIANG Feng. Clinical observation on soft and hard tissue changes of immediate implantation and immediate reconstruction in anterior region after loading 3 years [J]. Journal of Peking University(Health Sciences), 2018, 50(4): 694-699.
[10] ZHANG Hai-dong, ZHANG Li, SHI Dong, HAN Jie, YAN Xia, XIE Ye-si, MENG Huan-xin. Clinical study of locking-taper implants in patients treated for periodontitis [J]. Journal of Peking University(Health Sciences), 2018, 50(2): 300-307.
[11] LI Shi-ying, LI Gang, FENG Hai-lan, PAN Shao-xia. Influence of the interforaminal arch form of edentulous mandibles on design of “All-on-4”: preliminary research based on conebeam computed tomography [J]. Journal of Peking University(Health Sciences), 2017, 49(4): 699-703.
[12] CHEN Quan, ZHANG Xiao, ZHANG Zhi-yong, GAO Wei, LIU Wen-shu, MENG Tian, CHEN Yu-huan, WANG Hui-li. Detection and management of the vascular paths in the lateral sinus wall using cone beam computed tomography [J]. Journal of Peking University(Health Sciences), 2017, 49(3): 540-546.
[13] QIAO Jing, DUAN Jin-yu, CHU Yi, SUN Chang-zhou. Effect of concentrated growth factors on the treatment of degree Ⅱ furcation involvements of  mandibular molars [J]. Journal of Peking University(Health Sciences), 2017, 49(1): 36-042.
[14] ZHAO Li-ping, ZHAN Ya-lin, HU Wen-jie, WANG Hao-jie, WEI Yi-ping, ZHEN Min, Xu Tao, LIU Yun-song. Dental implantation and soft tissue augmentation after ridge preservation in a molar site: a case report [J]. Journal of Peking University(Health Sciences), 2016, 48(6): 1090-1094.
[15] JIANG Xi, LIN Ye, ZHANG Yu, DI Ping, CHEN Bo, HU Xiu-lian, LUO Jia, REN Shu-xin, OUYANG Si-yuan. A novel technique to preserve the alveolar ridge width following tooth extraction in the maxillary frontal area [J]. Journal of Peking University(Health Sciences), 2016, 48(1): 175-179.
Viewed
Full text


Abstract

Cited
  Shared   
  Discussed   
No Suggested Reading articles found!
Copyright © Journal of Peking University (Health Sciences), All Rights Reserved.
Powered by Beijing Magtech Co. Ltd