Format

Send to

Choose Destination
Biomed Res Int. 2017;2017:7819080. doi: 10.1155/2017/7819080. Epub 2017 Dec 14.

Comparison of the Bone Harvesting Capacity of an Intraoral Bone Harvesting Device and Three Different Implant Drills.

Author information

1
Department of Periodontology, Periodontal-Implant Clinical Research Institute, School of Dentistry, Kyung Hee University, Seoul, Republic of Korea.
2
Department of Dentistry/Periodontology, College of Medicine, Hanyang University, Seoul, Republic of Korea.

Abstract

The aim of the present study was to compare bone-collecting capacity of bone harvesting device and minimally irrigated low-speed drilling using three implant systems. One bone harvesting device and three commercially available drill systems were compared using the osteotomies on bovine rib bones. The amount of the collected bone particle and particle size (<500 μm: small, 500-1000 μm: medium, and >1000 μm: large) were measured. Total wet (1.535 ± 0.232 mL) and dry volume (1.147 ± 0.425 mL) of the bone particles from bone harvesting device were significantly greater than three drill systems (wet volume: 1.225 ± 0.187-1.27 ± 0.29 mL and dry volume: 0.688 ± 0.163-0.74 ± 0.311 mL) (P < 0.05). In all groups, the amount of large sized particles in wet and dry state was the greatest compared to that of medium and small particles. The dry weight of the bone particles showed the same tendency to volumetric measurement. In conclusion, total bone particles and large sized particles (>1000 μm) were harvested significantly greater by bone harvesting device than minimally irrigated low-speed drilling. The composition of particle size in all harvesting methods was similar to each other.

PMID:
29387724
PMCID:
PMC5745681
DOI:
10.1155/2017/7819080
[Indexed for MEDLINE]
Free PMC Article

Supplemental Content

Full text links

Icon for Hindawi Limited Icon for PubMed Central
Loading ...
Support Center