Home | About us | Editorial board | Search | Ahead of print | Current issue | Archives | Submit article | Instructions| Reviewers

  Home Print this page Email this page Small font sizeDefault font sizeIncrease font size Users Online: 143    
Year : 2021  |  Volume : 11  |  Issue : 4  |  Page : 437-447

Effects of the healing chambers in implant macrogeometry design in a low-density bone using conventional and undersized drilling

1 Department of Research, Biotecnos, Montevideo, Uruguay; Department of Biotechnology, Universidad Católica de Murcia, Murcia, Spain; Instituto de Bioingenieria, Universidad Miguel Hernández, Elche (Alicante), Spain
2 Department of Medical, Oral and Biotechnological Sciences, University of Chieti-Pescara, Chieti, Italy
3 Department of Rehabilitation, Universidade Federal Fluminense, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil
4 Post-Graduate Program in Implant Dentistry, Federal University of Santa Catarina, Florianópolis, SC, Brazil
5 Department of Materials Engineering, Pontificia Catholic University of Rio Grande do Sul, Porto Alegre, Brazil
6 Instituto de Bioingenieria, Universidad Miguel Hernández, Elche (Alicante), Spain

Correspondence Address:
Dr, Sergio A Gehrke
Department of Research, Biotecnos, Calle Cuareim, 1483, 11.100 Montevideo, Uruguay

Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None

DOI: 10.4103/jispcd.JISPCD_96_21

Rights and Permissions

Background: The ideal installation technique or implant macrogeometry for obtaining an adequate osseointegration in low-density bone tissue follows a challenge in the implantology. Aims and Objective: The aim of the present study was to evaluate the behavior of three osteotomy techniques and two implant macrogeometries in two low-density polyurethane blocks. The insertion torque (IT), initial stability, pullout resistance, and weight of the residual bone material deposited on the implants were assessed. Materials and Methods: A total of 120 implants with two different macrogeometries were used. They were divided into six groups according to the implant macrogeometry and the drilling technique performed (n = 20 implants per group). The implants were installed in polyurethane blocks with pounds per cubic foot (PCF) 10 and PCF 20 densities. The IT, initial stability, pullout resistance, and weight residual bone were measured. Results: Differences were found in the values referring to the macrogeometry of the implants and the type of osteotomy performed. In all groups, the initial stability of the PCF 10 blocks was quite low. The undersized osteotomies significantly increased the values measured in all tests in the PCF 20 density blocks. Conclusions: In conclusion, even when a modified (undersized) osteotomy technique is used, implants inserted in low-quality bone (type IV) can present problems for osseointegration due their low initial stability and bone resistance. However, the modification in the implant macrogeometry (with healing chambers) presented more quantity of bone on the surface after the pullout test.

Print this article     Email this article
 Next article
 Previous article
 Table of Contents

 Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
 Citation Manager
 Access Statistics
 Reader Comments
 Email Alert *
 Add to My List *
 * Requires registration (Free)

 Article Access Statistics
    PDF Downloaded76    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal