Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Differences in crestal bone-to-implant contact following an under-drilling compared to an over-drilling protocol. A study in the rabbit tibia

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Clinical Oral Investigations Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Objectives

The objective of this study is to compare bone-to-implant contact (BIC) between implants inserted at high torque due to under-drilling of the crestal bone to those inserted at low torque due to over-drilling of the crestal bone.

Materials and methods

Forty implants with diameters of 3.75 mm (group A) or 3.55 mm (group B) were inserted in the proximal tibiae of NZW rabbits in two separate surgeries on day 0 or 21. Osteotomy of the crestal bone was finalized with a 3.65-mm drill. In group A, implants were inserted at torque ≥35 Ncm (under-drilling) and in group B with torque <10 Ncm (over-drilling). Implants and their surrounding bone were retrieved on day 42, thus creating 3- and 6-week observation periods, processed for non-decalcified histology and stained with toluidine blue. Crestal BIC (c-BIC) and total BIC (t-BIC) were measured. Wilcoxon test was used to evaluate differences between groups.

Results

Three weeks post-surgery, the mean c-BIC in group A was 16.3 ± 3.3 vs 31.5 ± 3.4 % in group B (P < 0.05). At 6 weeks, a similar trend was observed (group A: 28.7 ± 3.6 %; group B: 38.4 ± 4.9 %) (P > 0.05). No differences in t-BIC were noted at 3 weeks and at 6 weeks between the groups.

Conclusions

Insertion of implants with an over-drilling protocol of the crestal aspect of the osteotomy resulted in increased short-term crestal bone-to-implant contact.

Clinical relevance

Insertion of implants with a high torque following an under-drilling protocol, commonly used for immediate loading, may reduce crestal bone-to-implant contact at early healing stages.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Adell R, Lekholm U, Rockler B, Brånemark PI (1981) A 15-year study of osseointegrated implants in the treatment of the edentulous jaw. Int J Oral Surg 10:387–416

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Søballe K, Brockstedt-Rasmussen H, Hansen ES, Bünger C (1992) Hydroxyapatite coating modifies implant membrane formation. Controlled micromotion studied in dogs. Acta Orthop Scand 63:128–140

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Szmukler-Moncler S, Piattelli A, Favero GA, Dubruille JH (2000) Considerations preliminary to the application of early and immediate loading protocols in dental implantology. Clin Oral Implants Res 11:12–25

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Trisi P, Perfetti G, Baldoni E, Berardi D, Colagiovanni M, Scogna G (2009) Implant micro-motion is related to peak insertion torque and bone density. Clin Oral Implants Res 20:467–471

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Trisi P, De Benedittis S, Perfetti G, Berardi D (2011) Primary stability, insertion torque and bone density of cylindric implant ad modum Branemark: is there a relationship? An in vitro study. Clin Oral Implants Res 22:567–570

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Ottoni JM, Oliveira ZF, Mansini R, Cabral AM (2005) Correlation between placement torque and survival of single-tooth implants. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 20:769–776

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Neugebauer J, Traini T, Thams U, Piatelli A, Zöller JE (2006) Peri-implant bone organization under immediate loading state. Circularly polarized light analyses: a minipig study. J Periodontol 77:152–160

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Turkyilmaz I, Aksoy U, McGlumphy EA (2008) Two alternative surgical techniques for enhancing primary implant stability in the posterior maxilla: a clinical study including bone density, insertion torque and resonance frequency analysis data. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 10:231–237

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Nkenke E, Kloss F, Wiltfang J, Schultze- Mosgau S, Radespiel-Tro¨ger M, Loos K (2002) Histomorphometric and fluorescence microscopic analysis of bone remodeling after installation of implants using an osteotome technique. Clin Oral Implants Res 13:595–602

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Bashutski JD, D’Silva NJ, Wang HL (2009) Implant pressure necrosis: current understanding and case report. J Periodontol 80:700–704

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. O’Sullivan D, Sennerby L, Meredith N (2000) Measurements comparing the initial stability of five designs of dental implants: a human cadaver study. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2:85–92

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Donath K (1985) The diagnostic value of the new method for the study of undecalcified bones and teeth with attached soft tissue (Säge-Schliff (sawing and grinding) technique). Pathol Res Pract 179(6):631–633

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Berglundh T, Abrahamsson I, Lang NP, Lindhe J (2003) De novo alveolar bone formation adjacent to endosseous implants. Clin Oral Implants Res 14:251–62

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Abrahamsson I, Berglundh T, Linder E, Lang NP, Lindhe J (2004) Early bone formation adjacent to rough and turned endosseous implant surfaces. An experimental study in the dog. Clin Oral Implants Res 15:381–392

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Duyck J, Roesems R, Cardoso MV, Ogawa T, De Villa CG, Vandamme K (2015) Effect of insertion torque on titanium implant osseointegration: an animal experimental study. Clin Oral Implants Res 26:191–196

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Halldin A, Jimbo R, Johansson CB, Wennerberg A, Jacobsson M, Albrektsson T, Hansson S (2011) The effect of static bone strain on implant stability and bone remodeling. Bone 49:783–789

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Krassas GE, Papadopoulou P (2001) Oestrogen action on bone cells. J Musculoskelet Neuronal Interact 2:143–151

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Coelho PG, Marin C, Teixeira HS, Campos FE, Gomes JB, Guastaldi F, Anchieta RB, Silveira L, Bonfante EA (2013) Biomechanical evaluation of undersized drilling on implant biomechanical stability at early implantation times. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 71:e69–75

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Masaki C, Schneider GB, Zaharias R, Seabold D, Stanford C (2005) Effects of implant surface microtopography on osteoblast gene expression. Clin Oral Implants Res 16:650–656

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Schneider GB, Perinpanayagam H, Clegg M, Zaharias R, Seabold D, Keller J, Stanford C (2003) Implant surface roughness affects osteoblast gene expression. J Dent Res 82:372–376

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Abrahamsson I, Berglundh T (2006) Tissue characteristics at microthreaded implants: an experimental study in dogs. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 8:107–113

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Lee DW, Choi YS, Park KH, Kim CS, Moon IS (2007) Effect of microthread on the maintenance of marginal bone level: a 3-year prospective study. Clin Oral Implants Res 18:465–470

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Periodontology and Dental Implantology, The Maurice and Gabriela Goldschleger School of Dental Medicine, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv, Israel

    Omer Cohen, Haim Tal & Ofer Moses

  2. Department of Oral Rehabilitation, School of Dental Medicine, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv, Israel

    Zeev Ormianer

  3. Department of Oral Biology, School of Dental Medicine, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv, Israel

    Miron Weinreb

  4. Department of Oral and Maxillo-facial Plastic Surgery, University of Cologne, Cologne, Germany

    Daniel Rothamel

Authors
  1. Omer Cohen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Zeev Ormianer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Haim Tal
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Daniel Rothamel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Miron Weinreb
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Ofer Moses
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Omer Cohen.

Ethics declarations

This study protocol was approved by the ethical committee for Animal Experimentation of Harlan Laboratories Ltd. (Kiryat Weizmann, Rehovot, Israel) No. IL-12-02-032.

Conflict of interest

Author A declares that he has no conflict of interest. Author B declares that he serves as an external advisor of Alpha Biotech Ltd. Author C declares that he has no conflict of interest. Author D declares that he has no conflict of interest. Author E declares that he has no conflict of interest. Author F declares that he serves as an external advisor of Alpha Biotech Ltd.

Funding

This study was funded by Alpha Biotech Ltd. (Petah Tikva, Israel) (grant number 0601914231). Grant recipients: Ofer Moses and Zeev Ormianer.

Ethical approval

All applicable international, national, and/or institutional guidelines for the care and use of animals were followed.

Informed consent

This study is an animal model study. For this type of study, informed consent is not required.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Cohen, O., Ormianer, Z., Tal, H. et al. Differences in crestal bone-to-implant contact following an under-drilling compared to an over-drilling protocol. A study in the rabbit tibia. Clin Oral Invest 20, 2475–2480 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-016-1765-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-016-1765-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation