|
Osseodensification implant site preparation technique and subsequent implant stability: A pilot study
Kurian Punnoose1, G Arun Kumar2, B Mahesh2, Rajtilak Govindarajulu3, V Amalorpavam4, A Ebinu2, J Suresh Babu5, C Swarnalatha5, Abhishek Singh Nayyar6
1 Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, College of Dentistry, University of Ha'il, Ha'il, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia
2 Department of Prosthodontics and Crown and Bridge, Noorul Islam College of Dental Sciences, Thiruvananthapuram, Kerala, India
3 Department of Prosthodontics and Crown and Bridge, RVS Dental College and Hospital, Coimbatore, Tamil Nadu, India
4 Department of Prosthodontics and Crown and Bridge, Rajas Dental College and Hospital, Kavalkinaru, Tirunelveli, Tamil Nadu, India
5 Division of Periodontology, Department of Preventive Dental Sciences, College of Dentistry, University of Ha'il, Ha'il, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia
6 Department of Oral Medicine and Radiology, Saraswati Dhanwantari Dental College and Hospital and Post-Graduate Research Institute, Parbhani, Maharashtra, India
Correspondence Address:
Abhishek Singh Nayyar
Department of Oral Medicine and Radiology, Saraswati-Dhanwantari Dental College and Hospital and Post-Graduate Research Institute, Parbhani, Maharashtra
India
 Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None  | Check |
DOI: 10.4103/jos.jos_45_22
|
|
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.
|
