Comparative Evaluation of Marginal Bone Levels, ISQ Trends, and Implant Survival Rates Between Conventional Drilling and Osteotome Technique Using Implants of Varied Lengths: A Split-Mouth Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial

Abstract

PURPOSE To assess marginal bone loss and implant stability when implant site preparation was performed with conventional drilling vs the osteotome technique in the posterior maxilla. MATERIALS AND METH-ODS A total of 30 patients (age 46.97 ± 7.48 years) receiving 60 implants were enrolled in this study. In each patient, implant site preparation was performed using conventional drilling (control group; n = 30) or the osteotome technique (test group; n = 30). Implant sites were further divided into groups based on implant length (implant length < 10 mm, implant length ≥ 10 mm). Marginal bone level (MBL) and implant stability quotient (ISQ) values were evaluated at the time of crown placement and 1 year thereafter. Independent and paired t tests were used for intergroup and intragroup comparison, respectively. RESULTS The test group showed statistically significantly higher initial ISQ (ISQi) and final ISQ (ISQf) values (ISQi: 61 ± 3.6; ISQf: 64.08 ± 3.7) in comparison to the control group (ISQi: 58.01 ± 4.6; ISQf: 61.32 ± 4.8). Statistically significantly higher mean MBL was noted in the control group (-0.33 mm ± 0.12 mm) compared to the test group (-0.26 mm ± 0.10 mm). Higher MBL was noted in the test group (-0.32 mm ± 0.09 mm) compared to the control group (-0.30 mm ± 0.14 mm) for implants < 10 mm in length. For implants ≥ 10 mm, significantly higher marginal bone loss was noted in the control (-0.37 mm ± 0.09 mm) compared to the test (-0.19 mm ± .06 mm) group. CONCLUSION The osteotome technique could be used as an alternative technique to conventional drilling, especially when implants longer than 10 mm are planned in the posterior maxilla.