Clinical trial of simplified drilling method for dental implant site preparation
10.3760/cma.j.issn.1002-0098.2018.06.008
- VernacularTitle: 简化钻孔法预备种植窝的临床观察
- Author:
Miao WANG
1
;
Wanrong WANG
1
;
Mingwei LI
2
;
Xiaofeng CHANG
1
;
Longlong HE
1
Author Information
1. Department of Implant Dentistry, College of Stomatology, Xi'an Jiaotong University & Clinical Research Center of Shaanxi Province for Dental and Maxillofacial Diseases & Key Laboratory of Shaanxi Province for Craniofacial Precision Medicine Research, Xi'an 710004, China
2. Department of Implant Dentistry, College of Stomatology, Xi'an Jiaotong University & Clinical Research Center of Shaanxi Province for Dental and Maxillofacial Diseases & Key Laboratory of Shaanxi Province for Craniofacial Precision Medicine Research, Xi'an 710004, China(Present address: Department of Stomatology, People's Hospital of Zhengzhou, Zhengzhou 450003, China)
- Publication Type:Journal Article
- Keywords:
Dental implantation;
Randomized controlled trial;
Conventional drilling method;
Simplified drilling method
- From:
Chinese Journal of Stomatology
2018;53(6):404-407
- CountryChina
- Language:Chinese
-
Abstract:
Objective:To investigate the clinical effect of simplified drilling method and conventional drilling method in implants.
Methods:A total of 46 patients (62 implants) were enrolled in this study that with dentition defect from May 2015 to May 2016 in the Implant department of Xi'an Jiao Tong University. The experimental group and the control group were randomly assigned according to the random number method, 23 cases in each group. The experimental group used the simplified drilling method (guided drill+ final drill), the control group using the conventional drilling method (step by step drill). The operation time, implant stability, marginal bone resorption rate and implant retention rate were compared between the two drilling methods.
Results:The retention of the experiment group was 97% (31/32), the the control group was 100% (30/30). The operative time in the experiment group [(4.9±0.5) min] was significantly lower from the control group [(8.9±2.0) min] (P=0.000). There was no significant difference between the two methods in bone resorption (P=0.197), implant stability (P>0.05) and implant survival rate (P=0.492).
Conclusions:The simplified drilling method can significantly reduce the operation time without compromising the clinical outcomes, and the osseointegration is well. The simplified drilling method should be used when sufficient bone mass, careful use in class II bone, forbidden in class I bone.
