Comparison of piezoimplants versus conventional cylindrical implants in minipigs: stability analysis
MetadataShow full item record
AIM: To compare the stability of a non-cylindrical implant using piezoelectric drilling (Piezoimplant) with a cylindrical implant with conventional drilling (Nobel Biocare™). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Three adult female Gottingen miniature pigs were used for the surgical implantation. Three implants on each quadrant, randomized split-mouth design using cylindrical or non-cylindrical implants (n=36). Osteotomies were prepared using either conventional drilling technique as per manufacturer’s instruction (Nobel Biocare™) or using piezoelectric drilling (Piezotome® (P2) (Satelec Acteon, Merignac, France) with new implant prototype tips (Fraunhofer Center for Manufacturing Innovation). The minipigs were sacrificed at 4, 8 and 12-weeks. Stability tests (three per implant) using wireless Periotest® “M” were done at the start point and after euthanization. RESULTS: R-square (ANOVA) test was plotted comparing implant design, weeks 4, 8 and 12, and location (mandible and maxilla) for stability analysis. In this model, the R-square is only 0.51, which indicates only 51% of the response variability can be explained by the fitted model. Among all the 3 factors, group (experiment vs control) is the most significant one, followed by week. Location significance is the least among the three factors. CONCLUSION: In mandibular and maxillary sites in minipigs where non-cylindrical prototype implants (piezoimplant) were inserted by piezoelectric site preparation, statistically significant differences were found between control and test group stability measurements, but no differences in week (4, 8 or 12) and location among the two groups (mandible and maxilla). Stability was like the cylindrical implants. Meaning that Piezoimplants could be an alternative for narrow residual ridges.