Marcus Abboud, DMD, PhD1/Jos? Luis Calvo Guirado, DDS, PhD, MS2/ Gary Orentlicher, DMD3/Gerhard Wahl, DMD, PhD4: Purpose: This study compared the accuracy of cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) and medicalgrade CT in the context of evaluating the diagnostic value and accuracy of fiducial marker localization for reference marker?based guided surgery systems. Materials and Methods: Cadaver mandibles with attached radiopaque gutta-percha markers, as well as glass balls and composite cylinders of known dimensions, were measured manually with a highly accurate digital caliper. The objects were then scanned using a medical-grade CT scanner (Philips Brilliance 64) and five different CBCT scanners (Sirona Galileos, Morita 3D Accuitomo 80, Vatech PaX-Reve3D, 3M Imtech Iluma, and Planmeca ProMax 3D). The data were then imported into commercially available software, and measurements were made of the scanned markers and objects. CT and CBCT measurements were compared to each other and to the caliper measurements. Results: The difference between the CBCT measurements and the caliper measurements was larger than the difference between the CT measurements and the caliper measurements. Measurements of the cadaver mandible and the geometric reference markers were highly accurate with CT. The average absolute errors of the human mandible measurements were 0.03 mm for CT and 0.23 mm for CBCT. The measurement errors of the geometric objects based on CT ranged between 0.00 and 0.12 mm, compared to an error range between 0.00 and 2.17 mm with the CBCT scanners. Conclusions: CT provided the most accurate images in this study, closely followed by one CBCT of the five tested. Although there were differences in the distance measurements of the hard tissue of the human mandible between CT and CBCT, these differences may not be of clinical significance for most diagnostic purposes. The fiducial marker localization error caused by some CBCT scanners may be a problem for guided surgery systems. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2013; 28:536?542. doi: 10.11607/jomi.2403

This study evaluates the thermal impact of a one-drill protocol for osteotomy preparation in dental implant surgery. Our findings demonstrate a significant reduction in heat generation compared to traditional sequential drilling, suggesting potential benefits for implant osseointegration and patient comfort. Specifically, the one-drill protocol was associated with lower peak temperatures and a reduced duration of elevated temperatures. These findings suggest that the one-drill protocol may contribute to improved implant stability and reduce the risk of thermal-induced bone damage. While further research is needed to confirm these findings in clinical settings, the results of this study provide promising evidence for the potential advantages of the one-drill protocol in dental implant surgery. Additionally, the one-drill protocol may offer simplified surgical workflows and reduced instrument management, potentially leading to improved efficiency and cost-effectiveness in dental implant procedures.

To ensure the prevention of thermal trauma and tissue necrosis during bone drilling in surgical procedures, it is crucial to maintain temperatures below the time- and temperature-dependent threshold of 50 °C for 30 s. However, the absence of a current standard for assessing temperatures attained during bone drilling poses a challenge when comparing findings across different studies. This article aims to address this issue by introducing a standardized testing method for acquiring thermal data during experimental bone drilling. The method requires the use of three controlled variables: infrared thermography, standard bone blocks, and a regulated drilling procedure involving a drill press with irrigation that simulates a surgeon. By utilizing this setup, we can obtain temperature data that can be effectively applied in the evaluation of other variables, such as surgical techniques or drill bit design, and translate the data into bone damage/clinical outcomes. Two surgical drill bits (2.0 mm-diameter twist drill bit and 3.3 mm-diameter multi-step drill bit) are compared using this experimental protocol. The results show the 2.0 mm bit reached significantly higher temperatures compared to the 3.3 mm bit when preparing an osteotomy (p < 0.05). The 2.0 mm drill bit reached temperatures over 100 °C while the 3.3 mm drill bit did not exceed 50 °C.

Sequential drilling is a common practice in dental implant surgery aimed at minimizing thermal damage to bone. This study evaluates the thermal effects of sequential drilling and assesses modifications to drilling protocols to manage heat generation. We utilized a custom drill press and artificial bone models to test five drill bits under various protocols, including sequential drilling with different loads, spindle speeds, and peck drilling. Infrared thermography recorded temperature changes during the drilling process, with temperatures monitored at various depths around the osteotomy. The results reveal sequential drilling does not eliminate the thermal damage zone it creates (well over 70 °C). It creates harmful heat to surrounding bone that can spread up to 10 mm from the osteotomy. The first drill used in sequential drilling produces the highest temperatures (over 100 °C), and subsequent drill bits cannot remove the thermal trauma incurred; rather, they add to it. Modifying drill bit design and employing proper drilling techniques, such as reducing drilling RPM and load, can reduce thermal trauma by reducing friction. Inadequate management of heat can lead to prolonged recovery, increased patient discomfort, and potential long-term complications such as impaired bone-to-implant integration and chronic conditions like peri-implantitis. Ensuring healthy bone conditions is critical for successful implant outcomes.