Download PDF
CC BY 4.0 · Eur J Dent
DOI: 10.1055/s-0043-1772675
Original Article

Peripheral Bone Removal versus Sequential Drilling Protocol in Dental Implant Surgery: A 5-Year Retrospective Study

Faaiz Yaqub Alhamdani 
1   Department of Oral Medicine, College of Dentistry, Mustansiriyah University, Baghdad, Iraq
,
Ahmad Fliah Hassan 
2   Department of Clinical Sciences, College of Dentistry, Ibn Sina University of Medical and Pharmaceutical Sciences, Baghdad, Iraq
,
Hashim Mueen Hussein 
3   Department of Conservative Dentistry, College of Dentistry, Mustansiriyah University, Baghdad, Iraq
› Author Affiliations
› Further Information
   Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Objective The aim of this study was to compare the immediate success rate between peripheral bone removal (PBR) and conventional sequential drilling protocols.

Materials and Methods Biographic data of 130 Iraqi patients who attended a private dental implant center in Baghdad between January 7, 2018 and February 30, 2023 were collected. During this period, 198 dental implant procedures were completed. The recorded data included the zone of implantation, immediate or delayed implant, sinus lift procedure, dental implant system, bone augmentation, and dental implant length and diameter.

Statistical Analysis SPSS Ver. 25 was used for statistical analysis. Both descriptive and inferential statistics were applied.

Results In total, 198 dental implant procedures were performed during the study period. Of these, 104 cases were treated with the PBR protocol and 94 with the conventional drilling protocol. Out of 130 patients included in this study, 70 were treated with the PBR (IBS) technique and 60 patients were treated with the conventional dental implant systems. The early success of osseointegration reported in this study for all of the cases exceeded 93%. The PBR protocol was successful in 96 cases (92.3%), whereas early success of osseointegration in patients treated with the conventional protocol was reported in 89 cases (94.7%). The chi-squared test showed no statistically significant difference in the early success rate between the two dental implant protocols (p = 0.575).

Conclusion In terms of immediate success, the PBR technique appears to be a reliable drilling technique. However, further longitudinal studies need to explore its potential to replace the sequential drilling protocol.

Keywords

oral surgery - dental implant - sequential drilling - peripheral bone removal protocol


Publication History

Article published online:
23 November 2023

© 2023. The Author(s). This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, permitting unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction so long as the original work is properly cited. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/)

Thieme Medical and Scientific Publishers Pvt. Ltd.
A-12, 2nd Floor, Sector 2, Noida-201301 UP, India

 

  • References

  • 1 Moraschini V, Poubel LA, Ferreira VF, Barboza EdosS. Evaluation of survival and success rates of dental implants reported in longitudinal studies with a follow-up period of at least 10 years: a systematic review. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2015; 44 (03) 377-388
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Albrektsson T, Brånemark PI, Hansson HA, Lindström J. Osseointegrated titanium implants. Requirements for ensuring a long-lasting, direct bone-to-implant anchorage in man. Acta Orthop Scand 1981; 52 (02) 155-170
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Marheineke N, Scherer U, Rücker M. et al. Evaluation of accuracy in implant site preparation performed in single- or multi-step drilling procedures. Clin Oral Investig 2018; 22 (05) 2057-2067
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Ericson D. What is minimally invasive dentistry?. Oral Health Prev Dent 2004; 2 (1, Suppl 1): 287-292
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Guazzi P, Grandi T, Grandi G. Implant site preparation using a single bur versus multiple drilling steps: 4-month post-loading results of a multicenter randomised controlled trial. Eur J Oral Implantology 2015; 8 (03) 283-290
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 IBS. Magic FC Implants. 2017 Accessed August 03, 2023 at: https://ibsimplant.us/innovative-solutions/magic-fc-implants/
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Nilawati N, Widyastuti W, Rizka Y, Kurniawan H. Dental implant osseointegration inhibition by nicotine through increasing nAChR, NFATc1 expression, osteoclast numbers, and decreasing osteoblast numbers. Eur J Dent 2022:10.1055/s-0042-1758794
    Google Scholar
  • 8 Ustun Y, Erdogan O, Kurkcu M, Akova T, Damlar I. Effects of low-intensity pulsed ultrasound on dental implant osseointegration: a preliminary report. Eur J Dent 2008; 2 (04) 254-262
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Elias CN, Meirelles L. Improving osseointegration of dental implants. Expert Rev Med Devices 2010; 7 (02) 241-256
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Alhamdani F, Abdullah E. The influence of local factors on early dental implant failure, 5-year retrospective study. J Odontol Res 2021; 9 (01) 5-10
    Google Scholar
  • 11 French D, Larjava H, Ofec R. Retrospective cohort study of 4591 Straumann implants in private practice setting, with up to 10-year follow-up. Part 1: multivariate survival analysis. Clin Oral Implants Res 2015; 26 (11) 1345-1354
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Grisar K, Sinha D, Schoenaers J, Dormaar T, Politis C. Retrospective analysis of dental implants placed between 2012 and 2014: indications, risk factors, and early survival. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2017; 32 (03) 649-654
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Jang H-W, Kang JK, Lee K, Lee YS, Park PK. A retrospective study on related factors affecting the survival rate of dental implants. J Adv Prosthodont 2011; 3 (04) 204-215
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Geckili O, Bilhan H, Geckili E, Cilingir A, Mumcu E, Bural C. Evaluation of possible prognostic factors for the success, survival, and failure of dental implants. Implant Dent 2014; 23 (01) 44-50
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Kang D-Y, Kim M, Lee SJ. et al. Early implant failure: a retrospective analysis of contributing factors. J Periodontal Implant Sci 2019; 49 (05) 287-298
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Alhamdani F, Abdulla EHJJMR, Sciences H. Influence of patient's age and gender on dental implant treatment five year retrospective study. J Med Res Health Sci 2021; 4 (09) 1461-1467
    Google Scholar
  • 17 Zhang ZY, Meng T, Chen Q, Liu WS, Chen YH. Retrospective analysis of early dental implant failure. Beijing Da Xue Xue Bao 2018; 50 (06) 1088-1091
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Schoenbaum TR, Moy PK, Aghaloo T, Elashoff D. Risk factors for dental implant failure in private practice: a multicenter survival analysis. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2021; 36 (02) 388-394
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Chrcanovic BR, Kisch J, Albrektsson T, Wennerberg A. Factors influencing early dental implant failures. J Dent Res 2016; 95 (09) 995-1002
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Baqain ZH, Moqbel WY, Sawair FA. Early dental implant failure: risk factors. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2012; 50 (03) 239-243
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Olmedo-Gaya MV, Manzano-Moreno FJ, Cañaveral-Cavero E, de Dios Luna-del Castillo J, Vallecillo-Capilla M. Risk factors associated with early implant failure: a 5-year retrospective clinical study. J Prosthet Dent 2016; 115 (02) 150-155
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Karalashvili L, Kakabadze A, Uhryn M, Vyshnevska H, Ediberidze K, Kakabadze Z. Bone grafts for reconstruction of bone defects. Georgian Med News 2018; (282) 44-49
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 McKenna GJ, Gjengedal H, Harkin J, Holland N, Moore C, Srinivasan M. Effect of autogenous bone graft site on dental implant survival and donor site complications: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Evid Based Dent Pract 2022; 22 (03) 101731
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Chen L. A one-drill system for predictable osteotomy and immediate implant placement. EC Dent Sci 2023; 22: 114-128
    Google Scholar
  • 25 Koopaie M, Kolahdouz S. Re: Heat generation and drill wear during dental implant site preparation. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2017; 55 (09) 985
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Gehrke SA, Guirado JLC, Bettach R, Fabbro MD, Martínez CP, Shibli JA. Evaluation of the insertion torque, implant stability quotient and drilled hole quality for different drill design: an in vitro Investigation. Clin Oral Implants Res 2018; 29 (06) 656-662
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Gehrke SA, Bettach R, Aramburú Júnior JS, Prados-Frutos JC, Del Fabbro M, Shibli JA. Peri-implant bone behavior after single drill versus multiple sequence for osteotomy drill. BioMed Res Int 2018; 2018: 9756043
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Senada EA, El Sheikh SA, Khalil MMJADJ. Evaluation of success of single drilling implant system (clinical and radiographic study). Alex Dent J 2020; 45 (02) 60-66
    Google Scholar