Healing at implants installed in osteotomies prepared either with a piezoelectric device or drills: an experimental study in dogs

• Published in: Oral and maxillofacial surgery Vol. 25; no. 1; pp. 65 - 73
• Main Authors: Fujiwara, Shigeo, Kato, Shingo, Bengazi, Franco, Urbizo Velez, Joaquin, Tumedei, Margherita, Kotsu, Mitsuo, Botticelli, Daniele
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Berlin/Heidelberg Springer Berlin Heidelberg 01.03.2021; Springer Nature B.V
• Subjects: Animal euthanasia; Animals; Dental Implantation, Endosseous; Dental Implants; Dentistry; Dogs; Experiments; Laboratories; Mandible - surgery; Medical research; Medicine; Medicine & Public Health; Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery; Original Article; Osseointegration; Osteotomy; Surgery; Wound Healing; Piezosurgery; Osseointegration; Histology; Animal experiments; Osteotomy; Dental implant
• ISSN: 1865-1550; 1865-1569
• DOI: 10.1007/s10006-020-00895-y

Objective To compare osseointegration and marginal bone level at implants placed in osteotomies prepared with either conventional drills or a piezoelectric device. Material and methods Three months after the extraction of all mandibular premolars and first molars, two recipient sites were selected. The osteotomies were randomly prepared with either conventional drills (drill sites) or a piezoelectric device (piezoelectric sites). Implants were installed and a submerged healing was allowed. The animals were euthanized in groups of six after 4 and 8 weeks of healing. Biopsies were obtained for histological preparation. Coronal level of osseointegration (bone level) and bone-to-implant contact percentage (BIC%) were evaluated. Results After 4 weeks of healing, the bone level was 0.6 ± 0.9 mm for the piezoelectric sites and 1.6 ± 0.7 mm for the drill sites ( p = 0.173). After 8 weeks, the respective measures were 0.9 ± 0.3 mm and 1.0 ± 1.1 mm ( p = 0.917). After 4 weeks of healing, a new bone apposed onto the implant surface was found at fractions of 54.9 ± 6.7% and 55.1 ± 16.6% for the piezoelectric and the drill sites, respectively ( p = 0.674). The respective total bone fractions, including new and old bone, was 64.0 ± 4.8% and 63.4 ± 20.4% ( p = 0.917). After 8 weeks, a new bone increased to 67.4 ± 6.7% and 62.9 ± 12.5% for the piezoelectric and the drill sites, respectively ( p = 0.463). The respective total bone fractions were 70.4 ± 5.5% and 67.8 ± 12.1% ( p = 0.753). Conclusions The use of a piezoelectric device for implant site preparation is a safe procedure that allows a proper integration since the early periods of healing similar to that observed using conventional drills.