Abstract
Aims: The aim of the current study is to compare the impact of using different drilling protocols on the dental implants primary stability inserted in the low-density bones. Materials and Methods: Out of twenty-two, ten oxen ribs were used in this in-vitro study. Using computed tomography (CT) scan, the most proximal three centimeters (cm) of the rib was confirmed to be a low-density bone comparable to human edentulous jaw bones. Forty dental implants were inserted, each rib received four dental implants using four different techniques that are arranged into four study groups:Group (I): includes a number of ten dental implants where the drilling burs and implants have the same size. Fit-size technique (F.G).Group (II): includes a number of ten dental implants where the diameter of the drilling burs is less than the implant diameter. Under-sized technique (U.G) Group (III): includes a number of ten dental implants where the simplified drilling protocol (Drill bypass) (D.G) was used for insertion.Group (IV): includes a number of ten dental implants where combined drilling protocols (C.G) (Undersized U.G+ Drill bypass D.G) were used for insertion. Results: Results revealed a statistically significant difference in the mean of insertion torque values (IT) between combined group (C.G) (65.000 N.cm) and fit-sized group (F.G) (45.0000 N.cm).Concerning Periotest M, a statistically significant difference was found in the mean of (PTV) between combined group (C.G) (-6.4500) and fit-sized group. A statistically highly significant correlation was found between insertion torque values (ITs) and Periotest M values (PTVs). Conclusion: Dental implant insertion in low-density bones using simplified drilling protocol (Drill bypass) (D.G) is better to be combined with undersized implant bed preparation (U.G) to enhance implant primary stability and with less time.Keywords: Kinesiology adhesive tape, Swelling, Pain, Dexamethasone, lower third molar teeth removal.
