[show abstract] [hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the heat generated in bone by 2 implant drill systems in vitro with and without using surgical drill guides.
Temperature was measured with K type thermocouple in vitro using the bovine femoral cortical bone model. A constant drill load of 2.0 kg was applied throughout the drilling procedures via a drilling rig at a speed of 1,500 rpm. Two different implant drill systems-System A (with external irrigation) and System B (with both external and internal irrigation)-were evaluated. The samples were divided into 4 groups. System A test group 1 (TG1) included the following: 20 samples for drilling with surgical drill guides; control group 1 (CG1): 20 samples for classical implant site preparation. System B test group 2 (TG2) included the following: 20 samples for drilling with surgical drill guides; control group 2 (CG2): 20 samples for classical implant site preparation. Heat was measured at the final drill in the drilling sequence (4.2 and 4.4 mm). Thermocouples were placed at a 1-mm distance from the osteotomy area at depths of 3, 6, and 9 mm. Heat measurements were recorded out to 50 uses by a software program. Data were subjected to the Mann-Whitney U and Kruskal-Wallis tests. The alpha level was set a priori at 0.05.
The mean maximum temperatures at the depths of 3, 6, and 9 mm using surgical drill guides were 34.2 degrees , 39.7 degrees , and 39.8 degrees C, respectively, although without using surgical drill guides the values were 28.8 degrees , 30.7 degrees , and 31.1 degrees C. A statistically significant difference was found at the depths of 3, 6, and 9 mm between using surgical drill guides and classical drilling procedure.
From a heat generation standpoint, we conclude that preparing an implant site with using surgical drill guides generates heat more than classical implant site preparation regardless of the irrigation type.
Journal of oral and maxillofacial surgery: official journal of the American Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons 12/2009; 67(12):2663-8. · 1.58 Impact Factor