A Comparative Assessment of Primary Implant Stability Using Osseodensification vs. Conventional Drilling Methods: A Systematic Review

Abdulrahman K Althobaiti; Abdulrahman W Ashour; Firas A Halteet; Sulaiman I Alghamdi; Mohamed M AboShetaih; Ali Mosa Al-Hayazi; Ahmed M Saaduddin

doi:10.7759/cureus.46841

A Comparative Assessment of Primary Implant Stability Using Osseodensification vs. Conventional Drilling Methods: A Systematic Review

Cureus. 2023 Oct 11;15(10):e46841. doi: 10.7759/cureus.46841. eCollection 2023 Oct.

Authors

Abdulrahman K Althobaiti¹, Abdulrahman W Ashour¹, Firas A Halteet¹, Sulaiman I Alghamdi¹, Mohamed M AboShetaih², Ali Mosa Al-Hayazi³, Ahmed M Saaduddin^{4

5}

Affiliations

¹ Dentistry Program, Batterjee Medical College, Jeddah, SAU.
² Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Dental Sector, Ministry of Health, Dakahlia Governorate, Mansoura, EGY.
³ Dentistry, Suliman Habter Dental Centers, Abha, SAU.
⁴ Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery Department, Faculty of Dentistry, Mansoura University, Mansoura, EGY.
⁵ Division of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Department of Clinical Dental Sciences, Dentistry Program, Batterjee Medical College, Jeddah, SAU.

Abstract

Osseodensification is a novel biomechanical bone preparation technique that has been established to replace conventional bone drilling and therefore will optimize the implant site. The purpose of this systematic review was to compare the implant stability obtained by osseodensification drilling to those associated with conventional drilling techniques. An electronic search was performed in the PubMed, Scopus, EMBASE, Cochrane Oral Health Group, and Dentistry and Oral Science Source databases searched through Elton B. Stephens Company (EBSCO) for potentially relevant publications in the English language from January 2013 to December 2022. Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) and non-randomized studies of interventions (NRSIs), contrasting osseodensification drilling with conventional drilling, studies documenting implant stability quotient (ISQ), and studies reporting the immediate outcome and at least three months of follow-up after dental implant placement were included. Two independent investigators evaluated the quality of the reviewed studies to determine the risk of bias using the version 2 of Cochrane risk-of-bias (RoB) tool for RCTs (RoB 2) and RoB for NRSIs (ROBINS-I). Majority of the studies showed that bone density was significantly higher in the osseodensification group. The overall RoB for the NRSIs was reported to be low with respect to confounding, selection, classification, incomplete data, deviance from interventions, outcome evaluation, and selective reporting. The quality assessment of the RCT studies included in the review using the RoB 2 tool showed a high overall risk. The findings of the current review reveal that osseodensification drilling exhibited higher resonance frequency analysis (RFA) and ISQ values than conventional drilling protocols. Similarly, when osseodensification regions were contrasted with traditional drilling, bone density at the implant surface was augmented.

Keywords: bone density; conventional drilling; densah bur; implant stability quotient; insertion torque; isq; osseodensification; osseointegration; primary implant stability; resonance frequency analysis.

Publication types

Review