• Users Online: 86
  • Print this page
  • Email this page


 
 Table of Contents  
REVIEW ARTICLE
Year : 2021  |  Volume : 6  |  Issue : 2  |  Page : 40-42

Tackling bone density through different osteotomy preparation techniques


1 Consultant, MDS Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Baba Jeevan Singhji memorial Medical Center, Gurudwara Shree Dashmesh Darbar, Gurutech Bahadur Nagar, Navi Mumbai, Maharashtra, India
2 MDS (Prosthodontics Crowns and Bridges), Prof, Department of Prosthodontics, G. D. Pol Dental College and Research Center, Navi Mumbai, Maharashtra, India
3 MDS (Prosthodontics Crowns and Bridges), Senior Lecturer, Department of prosthodontics, G. D. Pol Dental College and Research Center, Navi Mumbai, Maharashtra, India

Date of Submission04-May-2021
Date of Acceptance24-May-2021
Date of Web Publication22-Sep-2021

Correspondence Address:
Dr. Amol Ashok Dubey
Consultant, MDS Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Baba Jeevan Singhji memorial Medical Center, Gurudwara Shree Dashmesh Darbar, Gurutech Bahadur Nagar, Mumbai, Maharashtra
India
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


DOI: 10.4103/ijmo.ijmo_8_21

Rights and Permissions
  Abstract 


The main goal of implant rehabilitation is to achieve osseo-integration. One of the most important features allowing for osseo-integration is primary stability implant. Primary implant stability depends on the quantity and quality of the bone, the fixture design, and the surgical technique used. This article highlights several surgical protocols proposed to enhance the survival of implants in the bone of low density.

Keywords: Low density bone, osseodensification, piezosurgery, primary stability, undersized osteotome


How to cite this article:
Dubey AA, Banga PS, Sampat S. Tackling bone density through different osteotomy preparation techniques. Int J Med Oral Res 2021;6:40-2

How to cite this URL:
Dubey AA, Banga PS, Sampat S. Tackling bone density through different osteotomy preparation techniques. Int J Med Oral Res [serial online] 2021 [cited 2022 Jan 19];6:40-2. Available from: http://www.ijmorweb.com/text.asp?2021/6/2/40/326368




  Introduction Top


Endosteal implants are used in many medical procedures, from dental implants to orthopedic surgery. The main goal of implant rehabilitation is to achieve osseo-integration. One of the most important features allowing for osseo-integration is primary stability (PS) implant.[1],[2],[3]

PS can be defined as the mechanical stability between the implant and the bone surrounding the fixture. Primary implant stability depends on the quantity and quality of the bone, the fixture design, and the surgical technique used. Literature suggests that PS is achieved when the micro-motion of the implant has <50–150 μm thresholds before osseo-integration occurs. Mechanical behavior of the bone seems to be a vital factor in the achievement of osseointegration, several classification systems and procedures were suggested for assessing bone quality. The most popular current method of bone quality assessment is that developed by Lekholm and Zarb, who introduced a scale of 1–4, based on both the radiographic assessment, and the sensation of resistance experienced by the surgeon when preparing the implant site. The most common osteotomy surgical technique for implant placement is the bone drilling protocol. However, several protocols were developed to perform implant site preparation without bone drilling, particularly for in poor density bone.


  Bone Classification Top


An appreciation of bone density and its relation to oral implantology have existed for more than 25 years. Linkow (1970)[4],[5] classified bone density into three categories:

Class I Bone structure: This ideal bone type consists of evenly spaced trabeculae with small cancellated spaces, Class II Bone structure: The bone has slightly larger cancellated spaces with less uniformity of the osseous pattern, Class III Bone structure: Large marrow-filled spaces exist between bone trabeculae.

Lekholm and Zarb (1985)[5] listed four bone qualities found in the anterior regions of the jawbone. Quality 1 was composed of homogeneous compact bone. Quality 2 had a thick layer of compact bone surrounding a core of dense trabecular bone. Quality 3 had a thin layer of cortical bone surrounding dense trabecular bone of favorable strength. Quality 4 had a thin layer of cortical bone surrounding a core of low-density trabecular bone. Irrespective of the different bone qualities, all bones were treated with the same implant design and standard surgical and prosthetic protocol.


  Misch Bone Density Classification (1988) Top


Dense or porous cortical bone is found on the outer surfaces of the bone and includes the crest of an edentulous ridge. Coarse and fine trabecular bone types are found within the outer shell of cortical bone and occasionally on the crestal surface of an edentulous residual ridge. These four macroscopic structures of the bone may be arranged from the least dense to the most dense; D1 bone is primarily dense cortical bone. D2 bone has dense-to-porous cortical bone on the crest and within the bone, has coarse trabecular bone. D3 bone types have a thinner porous cortical crest and fine trabecular bone in the region next to the implant.[2] D4 bone has almost no crestal cortical bone.[5] A very soft bone, with incomplete mineralization and large intertrabecular spaces, may be addressed as D5 bone. This bone type is most often immature bone in a developing sinus graft.


  Determining Osseous Density with A 2-Mm Twist Drill Top


This provides information with respect to cortical bone thickness and medullary trabecular bone density. The amount of bone debris found on the twist drill can be interpreted as an indicator of bone quality (e.g. the less debris and a more bloody appearance means softer bone). The four types of mineralized bone have been described by Misch D1 feels like drilling into oak or maple. D2 feels like drilling into pine or spruce. D3 feels like drilling into balsa wood. D4 feels like drilling into Styrofoam. Tactile feedback from the 2-mm twist drill clearly facilitates differentiating between D1 and D4 bone; however, it is difficult to distinguish between the intermediate classes of bone quality (D2 and D3).[3]


  Decisions Based on Bone Density Top


To reduce the preparation time within the bone to a minimum in D1 bone, the clinician should not apply constant pressure to the drill, but “bone dance” with intermittent pressure for 1 s in the D1 bone and 1–2 s out of the bone while the cooled irrigation is allowed to perfuse the site. In summary, in D1 and D2 bone, a higher speed (1500–2000 rpm) should be used in the preparation of the bone. In poorer quality bone (e.g. D3 and D4), drilling speed is not as crucial; therefore, a lower speed maybe use (~1000 rpm).[3]


  Surgical Modifications to Tackle Poor Bone Density Top


Several surgical protocols have been proposed to enhance the survival of implants in the bone of low density. Undersized, osteotome, piezosurgery, and osseodensification (OD) drilling were the techniques found in the literature to enhance osseointegration of implants in low-density bone.[3]


  Undersized Implant Site Preparation for Poor Bone Density Top


The undersized drilling technique that has been introduced to locally optimize the bone density by using a final drill diameter considerably smaller than the implant diameter.[3] This technique has resulted in higher insertion torque values, which are an indicator of improved primary implant stability and may increase the chance of implant success rate 28–30. This technique described previously has been mentioned in the literature under many names, for example, undersized, modified, or adapted drilling technique.[3] The adapted surgical approach by undersizing the implant bed preparation has shown better osseointegration and greater implant stability in animal studies.


  Stepped Osteotomy Top


Using this method under preparation is performed only in the apical area of the implant site preparation, crestal site is treated with standard approach. A stepped osteotomy provides apical bone contact when indicated for increased PS. In the soft bone, it may be indicated with a stepped osteotomy, i.e. providing apical bone contact when increased PS is desired.[3]


  Osseodensification Top


OD is a new method of biomechanical bone preparation performed for dental implant placement. The procedure is characterized by low plastic deformation of bone that is created by rolling and sliding contact using a densifying bur that is fluted such that it densifies the bone with minimal heat elevation.[1] OD, a bone nonextraction technique, was developed by Huwais 2013 and done using specially designed burs (Densah™ burs) that help densify bone as they prepare an osteotomy. Standard drills excavate bone during implant osteotomy, while osteotomes tend to induce fractures of the trabeculae that requiring long remodeling time and delayed secondary implant stability.[1] The Densah burs allow for bone preservation and condensation through compaction autografting during osteotomy preparation, thereby increasing the bone density in the peri-implant areas and improving the implant mechanical stability. This facilitates an increased bone plasticity and bone expansion. Huwais demonstrated that OD helped ridge expansion while maintaining alveolar ridge integrity, thereby allowing implant placement in autogenous bone.[6]


  Conclusion Top


In the presence of poor-bone quality, an undersized protocol is sufficient to improve the PS of the implant; additional decreases do not seem to enhance PS values. OD is a specialized procedure for osteotomy preparation that is inherently bone preserving. Unlike conventional osteotomy, it uses specialized high-speed densifying burs to prepare osteotomy and autograft bone in the phase of plastic deformation. This results in an expanded osteotomy with preserved and dense compacted bone tissue that helps maintain ridge integrity and allows implant placement with superior stability.

Financial support and sponsorship

Nil.

Conflicts of interest

There are no conflicts of interest.



 
  References Top

1.
Lahens B, Neiva R, Tovar N, Alifarag AM, Jimbo R, Bonfante EA, et al. Biomechanical and histologic basis of osseodensification drilling for endosteal implant placement in low density bone. An experimental study in sheep. J Mech Behav Biomed Mater 2016;63:56-65.  Back to cited text no. 1
    
2.
Summers RB. A new concept in maxillary implant surgery: The osteotome technique. Compendium 1994;15:152, 154-6, 158 passim.  Back to cited text no. 2
    
3.
Gil LF, Sarendranath A, Neiva R, Marão HF, Tovar N, Bonfante EA, et al. Bone healing around dental implants: Simplified vs conventional drilling protocols at speed of 400 rpm. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2017;32:329-36.  Back to cited text no. 3
    
4.
Pai UY, Rodrigues SJ, Talreja KS, Mundathaje M. Osseodensification-A novel approach in implant dentistry. J Indian Prosthodont Soc 2018;18:196-200.  Back to cited text no. 4
[PUBMED]  [Full text]  
5.
Norton MR, Gamble C. Bone classification: An objective scale of bone density using the computerized tomography scan. Clin Oral Implants Res 2001;12:79-84.  Back to cited text no. 5
    
6.
Trisi P, Berardini M, Falco A, Podaliri Vulpiani M. Effect of implant thread geometry on secondary stability, bone density, and bonetoimplant contact: A biomechanical and histological analysis. Implant Dent 2015;24:384-91.  Back to cited text no. 6
    




 

Top
 
 
  Search
 
Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
Access Statistics
Email Alert *
Add to My List *
* Registration required (free)

 
  In this article
Abstract
Introduction
Bone Classification
Misch Bone Densi...
Determining Osse...
Decisions Based ...
Surgical Modific...
Undersized Impla...
Stepped Osteotomy
Osseodensification
Conclusion
References

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed469    
    Printed19    
    Emailed0    
    PDF Downloaded53    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal


[TAG2]
[TAG3]
[TAG4]