Effect of implant drill design on the particle size of the bone collected during osteotomy

Park, S.-Y.; Shin, Seung‐Yun; Yang, Seung-Min; Kye, Seung-Beom

doi:10.1016/j.ijom.2010.05.009

Cited by 14 publications

(14 citation statements)

References 19 publications

(27 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…8,9 The thermal and mechanical damage produced by the drilling procedure has been associated with the combination of variables: drill speed, feed rate, 10 drill diameter, 11 drill geometry, 12 drill design, 13 irrigation, [14][15][16] drilling depth, 17 and drilling pressure. 18 Several factors have been studied regarding drill design and its effects on bone: tip geometry (important because an acute point angle will increase the perforation efficacy in cortical bone) 19 ; the number of flutes (a greater number will increase cutting efficiency and reduce thermal variations) 20,21 ; drill walls (apparently cylindrical drills are able to induce higher temperature changes in comparison with conical drills) [22][23][24] ; and drill material (ceramic drills can present higher resistance to wear but similar thermal variations compared with metallic drills). 25,26 In a recent in vitro study, Augustin and colleagues 27 investigated bone temperature increase with newly designed spiral drills for orthopedic surgery applications -a two-step drill and an internally cooled drill -which aimed to lower bone temperature to below the critical threshold, even when a 4.5-mm drill was used.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Multistepped Drill Design for Single‐Stage Implant Site Preparation: Experimental Study in Type 2 Bone

Abboud

Delgado-Ruíz

Kucine

et al. 2014

Clin Implant Dent Rel Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Multistepped Drill Design for Single‐Stage Implant Site Preparation: Experimental Study in Type 2 Bone

Abboud

Delgado-Ruíz

Kucine

et al. 2014

Clin Implant Dent Rel Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…When harvesting bone particles during osteotomy preparation, drill geometry may be important. Indeed, Park et al suggested that drill morphology significantly influenced the size of collected bone particles [ 18 ]. However, there have been few studies on drill geometry for bone harvesting, and in some cases drill geometry is proprietary information of the implant company.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The experiment protocol was based on previous studies with modifications [ 17 , 18 ]. Briefly, bone harvesting for collection of bone particles was performed on bovine rib bones.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparison of the Bone Harvesting Capacity of an Intraoral Bone Harvesting Device and Three Different Implant Drills

Lim

Hong

et al. 2017

BioMed Research International

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The aim of the present study was to compare bone-collecting capacity of bone harvesting device and minimally irrigated low-speed drilling using three implant systems. One bone harvesting device and three commercially available drill systems were compared using the osteotomies on bovine rib bones. The amount of the collected bone particle and particle size (<500 μm: small, 500–1000 μm: medium, and >1000 μm: large) were measured. Total wet (1.535 ± 0.232 mL) and dry volume (1.147 ± 0.425 mL) of the bone particles from bone harvesting device were significantly greater than three drill systems (wet volume: 1.225 ± 0.187–1.27 ± 0.29 mL and dry volume: 0.688 ± 0.163–0.74 ± 0.311 mL) (P < 0.05). In all groups, the amount of large sized particles in wet and dry state was the greatest compared to that of medium and small particles. The dry weight of the bone particles showed the same tendency to volumetric measurement. In conclusion, total bone particles and large sized particles (>1000 μm) were harvested significantly greater by bone harvesting device than minimally irrigated low-speed drilling. The composition of particle size in all harvesting methods was similar to each other.

show abstract

“…Implant system manufacturers modify the shape of drills to reduce friction on their surface, reducing heat generation while maintaining the ability to accumulate and preserve tissue [1]. This is an important feature, because the tissue recovered during bone preparation can be a valuable augmentation material [2]. An important parameter in bone tissue processing is the optimization of the rotational speed for a given drill.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparative Analysis of Bone Tissue Temperature during Implant Preparation with Variable Drilling Parameters: In Vitro Study

Kosior

Pelc

Mikulewicz

2020

BioMed Research International

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose. The aim of this work was to compare the temperature fluctuations that occur during the development of the implant bed using three different implant systems and the impact on their value of cooling method and rotational speed of drill. Material and Methods. As a model of the human jaw due to the analogy of bone structure and hardness, pig ribs were used. Drills from three different implant systems were used in the study: Straumann® (Straumann GmbH, Basel, Switzerland), AnyRidge® (Megagen Implant Co., Ltd., Daegu, South Korea), and Osstem (OSSTEM IMPLANT CO., LTD., Seoul, South Korea). The sequence of three successive drills was given—from pilot drill to final drill. For each system, a group with two water cooling methods, without cooling, and three different speed ranges, 800, 1200, and 1500 rpm, and their effect on temperature fluctuations was evaluated. The temperature was measured by thermography. Results. The highest temperature increases were noted during preparation with pilot drills. The maximum temperature (50.8°C) was noted for the AnyRidge pilot drill at 1500 rpm without cooling. When cooling with physiological saline, none of the applied drills exceeded 28°C. Significant differences between lack of cooling and cooling with saline at 20°C and 3°C have been demonstrated. During preparation with cooling, the difference between the times of the maximum temperature achievement was observed between AnyRidge® and Osstem (2.6 vs. 1.6 s, p=0.004). Conclusion. The experiment showed that the drills of the tested implant systems differed in the amount of heat generated during operation. The temperature of the cooling solution and the rotational speed applied have an influence on its amount.

show abstract

Effect of implant drill design on the particle size of the bone collected during osteotomy

Cited by 14 publications

References 19 publications

Multistepped Drill Design for Single‐Stage Implant Site Preparation: Experimental Study in Type 2 Bone

Multistepped Drill Design for Single‐Stage Implant Site Preparation: Experimental Study in Type 2 Bone

Comparison of the Bone Harvesting Capacity of an Intraoral Bone Harvesting Device and Three Different Implant Drills

Comparative Analysis of Bone Tissue Temperature during Implant Preparation with Variable Drilling Parameters: In Vitro Study

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About