4.6 Article

Healing at sites prepared using different drilling protocols. An experimental study in the tibiae of sheep

Journal

PLOS ONE
Volume 13, Issue 8, Pages -

Publisher

PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0202957

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. BTI Biotechnology Institute, Vitoria-Gasteiz (AAlava), Spain
  2. ARDEC Academy, Ariminum Odontologica s.r.l., Rimini, Italy

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The aim of the experiment was to study the healing at implants installed in site prepared in bone type 1 using different rotation speeds and cooling strategies. The tibiae of twelve sheep were used as experimental sites. Two implant sites were prepared in each tibia using drills either at a high or a mixed speed under irrigation. At the mixed-speed sites, 60 rpm without irrigation were applied for the last drill, the countersink and during implant installation. Biopsies representing the healing after 1, 2, and 6 weeks were obtained and ground sections were prepared. At the histological analyses, after 1 week of healing, no new bone was found at both high- and mixed-speed sites. After 2 weeks of healing, small amounts of newly formed bone were observed in the cortical layer, reaching percentages of 3.6 +/- 3.0% at the mixed-speed sites, and of 2.2 +/- 1.5% at the high-speed sites. An irrelevant quantity of new bone was seen in the marrow compartments of a few specimens. After 6 weeks of healing, new bone was found in higher quantity, reaching in the cortical compartment 66.9 +/- 6.8% and 67.3 +/- 17.7% at the mixed- and high-speed sites, respectively. The respective percentages in the marrow compartment were 23.2 +/- 13.0% and 30.6 +/- 29.2%. No statistically significant differences between high- and mixed-speed groups were found. It was concluded that the use of the last drill and the installation of the implant with or without irrigation yielded similar bone healing and osseointegration.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available