The Journal of Contemporary Dental Practice

Register      Login

SEARCH WITHIN CONTENT

FIND ARTICLE

Volume / Issue

Online First

Archive
Related articles

VOLUME 23 , ISSUE 2 ( February, 2022 ) > List of Articles

ORIGINAL RESEARCH

Effect of Osseodensification on Bone Density and Crestal Bone Levels: A Split-mouth Study

Siddhant Aloorker, Manoj Shetty, Chethan Hegde

Keywords : Bone density, Dental implant, Osseointegration

Citation Information : Aloorker S, Shetty M, Hegde C. Effect of Osseodensification on Bone Density and Crestal Bone Levels: A Split-mouth Study. J Contemp Dent Pract 2022; 23 (2):162-168.

DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10024-3303

License: CC BY-NC 4.0

Published Online: 10-06-2022

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2022; The Author(s).


Abstract

Background: Dental implants have become a popular alternative in the oral and maxillofacial rehabilitation after the introduction of the concept of osseointegration. A poor density bone can negatively influence the bone to implant contact (BIC) and delay osseointegration. Various osteotomy techniques and drilling procedures have been used to increase stability in low-density bone. But they have been associated with limitations such as trauma to the surrounding bone and difficulty in controlling the technique. Osseodensification has recently been developed. Densifying burs are specifically designed burs which help in preserving the bone by condensing the bone by rotating in the noncutting direction. Materials and methods: Split-mouth study was conducted on a total of 10 patients wherein implants were placed in the same patient bilaterally in maxillary posterior region where the left maxillary posterior region received implants through sequential osteotomy technique and the right maxillary posterior region received implants through a series of new multifluted tapered burs (Densah™). A cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) was taken preoperatively, immediately after implant placement, and 3 and 6 months after implant placement. The bone density and crestal bone levels were measured. Results were analyzed by student's paired “t” test and Man-Whitney U test. Results: There is no statistical difference between the levels of the crestal bone between an osseodensified site as compared to a conventional osteotomy site. The width of the residual bone increases after osseodensification and remains in the increased dimension for 3 months and continues at 6 months. Thus, it can be concluded that osseodensification leads to bone expansion. Conclusion: The radiographic bone density adjacent to the implant is significantly increased after ossedensification and the bone there remains relatively dense over a period of 6 months aiding in a primary stability and eventual good osseointegration.


PDF Share
  1. Huwais S, Meyer EG. A novel osseous densification approach in implant osteotomy preparation to increase biomechanical primary stability, bone mineral density, and bone-to-implant contact. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2017;32(1):27–36. DOI: 10.11607/jomi.4817.
  2. Isoda K, Ayukawa Y, Tsukiyama Y, et al. Relationship between the bone density estimated by cone-beam computed tomography and the primary stability of dental implants. Clin Oral Implants Res 2012;23(7):832–836. DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-0501.2011.02203.x.
  3. Cassetta M, Stefanelli LV, Pacifici A, et al. How accurate is CBCT in measuring bone density? A comparative CBCT-CT in vitro study. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2014;16(4):471–478. DOI: 10.1111/cid.12027.
  4. Trisi P, Berardini M, Falco A, et al. New osseodensification implant site preparation method to increase bone density in low-density bone: In vivo evaluation in sheep. Implant Dent 2016;25(1):24. DOI: 10.1097/ID.0000000000000358.
  5. Lioubavina-Hack N, Lang NP, Karring T. Significance of primary stability for osseointegration of dental implants. Clin Oral Implant Res 2006;17(3):244–250. DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-0501.2005.01201.x.
  6. Parsa A, Ibrahim N, Hassan B, et al. Bone quality evaluation at dental implant site using multislice CT, micro-CT, and cone beam CT. Clin Oral Implants Res 2015;26(1):e1–e7. DOI: 10.1111/clr.12315.
  7. Liang X, Lambrichts I, Sun Y, et al. A comparative evaluation of cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) and multi-slice CT (MSCT). Part II: on 3D model accuracy. Eur J Radiol 2010;75(2):270–274. DOI: 10.1016/j.ejrad.2009.04.016.
  8. Sultana A, Makkar S, Saxena D, et al. To compare the stability and crestal bone loss of implants placed using osseodensification and traditional drilling protocol: a clinicoradiographical study. J Indian Prosthodont Soc 2020;20(1):45. DOI: 10.4103/jips.jips_133_19.
  9. Ivanoff CJ, Grondahl K, Bergstrom C, et al. Influence of bicortical or monocortical anchorage on maxillary implant stability: a 15-year retrospective study of Branemark System implants. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2000;15(1):103. PMID: 10697944.
  10. Degidi M, Daprile G, Piattelli A. Influence of underpreparation on primary stability of implants inserted in poor quality bone sites: an in vitro study. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2015;73(6):1084–1088. DOI: 10.1016/j.joms.2015.01.029.
  11. Gomez-Roman G, Kruppenbacher M, Weber H, et al. Immediate postextraction implant placement with root-analog stepped implants: surgical procedure and statistical outcome after 6 years. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implant 2001;16(4):503–513. PMID: 11515997.
  12. Fugazzotto PA, Wheeler SL, Lindsay JA. Success and failure rates of cylinder implants in type IV bone. J Periodontol 1993;64(11): 1085–1087. DOI: 10.1902/jop.1993.64.11.1085.
  13. Jaffin RA, Berman CL. The excessive loss of Branemark fixtures in type IV bone: a 5-year analysis. J Periodontol 1991;62(1):2–4. DOI: 10.1902/jop.1991.62.1.2.
  14. Herrmann I, Lekholm U, Holm S, et al. Evaluation of patient and implant characteristics as potential prognostic factors for oral implant failures. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implant 2005;20(2):220–230. PMID: 15839115.
  15. Friberg B, Jemt T, Lekholm U. Early failures in 4,641 consecutively placed Branemark dental implants: a study from stage 1 surgery to the connection of completed prostheses. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implant 1991;6(2):142–146. PMID: 1809668.
  16. Norton MR. The influence of insertion torque on the survival of immediately placed and restored single-tooth implants. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implant 2011;26(3):1333–1343. PMID: 22167441.
  17. Alghamdi H, Anand PS, Anil S. Undersized implant site preparation to enhance primary implant stability in poor bone density: a prospective clinical study. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2011;69(12):506–512. DOI: 10.1016/j.joms.2011.08.007.
  18. Blanco J, Suarez J, Novio S, et al. Histomorphometric assessment in cadavers of the periimplant bone density in maxillary tuberosity following implant placement using osteotome and conventional techniques. Clin Oral Implant Res 2008;19(5):505–510. DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-0501.2007.01505.x.
  19. Penarrocha M, Perez H, Garcia A, et al. Benign paroxysmal positional vertigo as a complication of osteotome expansion of the maxillary alveolar ridge. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2001;59(1): 106–107. DOI: 10.1053/joms.2001.19307.
  20. Wang L, Wu Y, Perez KC, et al. Effects of condensation on peri-implant bone density and remodeling. J Dent Res 2017;96(4):413–420. DOI: 10.1177/0022034516683932.
  21. Kanathila H, Pangi A. An insight into the concept of osseodensification-enhancing the implant stability and success. J Clin Diagn Res 2018;12(7):ZE01–ZE03. DOI: 10.7860/JCDR/2018/35626.11749.
  22. Slete FB, Olin P, Prasad H. Histomorphometric comparison of 3 osteotomy techniques. Implant Dent 2018;27(4):424–428. DOI: 10.1097/ID.0000000000000767.
  23. Lopez CD, Alifarag AM, Torroni A, et al. Osseodensification for enhancement of spinal surgical hardware fixation. J Mech Behav Biomed Mater 2017;69:275–281. DOI: 10.1016/j.jmbbm.2017. 01.020.
  24. Hindi AR, Bede SY. The effect of osseodensification on implant stability and bone density: a prospective observational study. J Clin Exp Dent 2020;12(5):e474–e478. DOI: 10.4317/jced.56727.
  25. Pai UY, Rodrigues SJ, Talreja KS, et al. Osseodensification–a novel approach in implant dentistry. J Indian Prosthodont Soc 2018;18(3):196–200. DOI: 10.4103/jips.jips_292_17.
  26. Seo D-J, Moon S-Y, You J-S, et al. The effect of under-drilling and osseodensification drilling on low-density bone: a comparative ex vivo study. Appl Sci 2022;12:1163. DOI: 10.3390/app12031163.
  27. Johnson EC, Huwais S, Olin PS. Osseodensification increases primary implant stability and maintains high ISQ values during first six weeks of healing. In: Presentation at the American Academy of Implant Dentistry 63rd annual meeting. 2014.
  28. Gaspar J, Esteves T, Gaspar R, et al. Osseodensification for implant site preparation in the maxilla-a prospective study of 97 implants. Clin Oral Implant Res 2018;29:163. DOI: 10.1111/clr.48_13358.
PDF Share
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.