Background: Three The success of implant site preparation is essential for the osseointegration and long-term survival of implants. Conventional drilling methods dissipate heat and traumatize the bone, potentially compromising bone healing. Osseodensification as a non-subtractive compaction method has emerged as a less invasive novel technique for enhancing the stability of end-implant system recently.
Aim: The aim of this study was to compare in clinical, the efficacy and invasiveness between osseodensification burs
and the conventional rotaty burs as well as postoperative outcomes of osseodensification burs for dental implant surgery considering oral hygiene, thermal control and healing aspects.
Methods: A randomized controlled, double-blind clinical trial was conducted on 50 systemically healthy patients, aged 20–65 years old, treated for single-tooth dental implant. The participants had been randomized to either the
osseodensification (n = 25) or the conventional drilling (n = 25) group. The following parameters were assessed: OHI,
plaque, calculus, pain (VAS), Thermal index. Descriptive statistics were calculated, and differences were compared with t-tests, regression, and ANOVA with interaction terms to test demographic modifiers.
Results: Regarding pain assessment there were significant enhancements in OHI (mean = 1.19 vs 2.00, p=0.0001 -
plaque and calculus scores (p<0.0001), pain (VAS = 2.12 vs 3.00, p=0.0002), thermal index (0.00 vs 1.12, <0.0001).
ANOVA indicated that there were significant effects of age, sex, and education, as well as an age-surgery interaction
(p=0.02).
Conclusion: According to this study, osseodensification burs showed statistically and clinically more favorable
outcomes compared to the conventional burs. These findings suggest that osseodensification should be incorporated into routine implant procedures, especially in young individuals and low density bone.
Hi! I can explain how to publish or share, find articles in your field, format citations and answer questions about fees and licensing. How can I help?
Answers are based on The Gufo’s published policies. Editorial decisions are made by the editorial team.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
