Michele Stocchero, DDS/Marco Toia, DDS/Denis Cecchinato, MD, DDS/Jonas P. Becktor, DDS, PhD/Paulo G. Coelho, DDS, PhD/Ryo Jimbo, DDS, PhD: Purpose: To compile the current evidence on biomechanical, biologic, and clinical outcomes of undersized surgical preparation protocols in dental implant surgery. Materials and Methods: An electronic search using three different databases (PubMed, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library) and a manual hand search were performed including in vitro, animal, and clinical studies published prior to October 2015. Studies in which an undersized drilling protocol was compared with a nonundersized drilling protocol were included. Results: From an initial selection of 1,655 titles, 29 studies met the inclusion criteria, including 14 biomechanical, 7 biologic, 6 biologic and biomechanical, and 2 clinical. Due to methodologic variation, meta-analysis was not performed. Several studies showed that implants inserted with an undersized drilling approach reached a significantly higher insertion torque value than conventional drilling in low-density substrates, while this effect is less evident if a thick cortical layer is present. Similar results in terms of boneto-implant contact (BIC) were achieved in the longer term between implants inserted with undersized and nonundersized protocols. Results in the short term were inconclusive. Clinical studies did not show negative outcomes for undersized drilling, although clinical evidence was sparse. No data are available on marginal bone loss. Conclusion: From the biomechanical standpoint, an undersized drilling protocol is effective in increasing insertion torque in low-density bone. Biologic response in long-term healing after undersized implant placement is comparable to that in the nonundersized surgical drilling protocol. Clinical studies indicate that performing an undersized drilling protocol on low-density bone is a safe procedure; however, more extensive studies are needed to confirm these data.

Marco Toia, DDS/Michele Stocchero, DDS/Francesca Cecchinato, MS, PhD/Enrico Corr?, DDS/Ryo Jimbo, DDS, PhD/Denis Cecchinato, MD, DDS: Purpose: To evaluate insertion torque value (ITV) and marginal bone loss (MBL) of an implant system after a clinically perceived bone quality?adapted drilling. Materials and Methods: This multicenter retrospective study included patients treated with implants, conventionally loaded, in completely healed sites. Operators customized the osteotomy preparation according to radiographic assessment and their perception of bone quality. Drilling sequence, bone quality, and ITV were recorded at the time of surgery. Radiographs were taken at the time of implant placement and permanent restoration. MBL between implant placement and permanent restoration was calculated. The implant was used as the statistical unit. Demographic and implant characteristics were shown by means of descriptive statistics. Outcome values were compared using analysis of variance (ANOVA) and Kruskal-Wallis tests. Multiple regression models were used to test the effect of independent variables on ITV and MBL. Results: One hundred eighty-eight implants placed in 87 patients were included in the analysis. The mean observation period was 144 ? 59 days. The mean ITV was 30.8 ? 15.1 Ncm. ITV differed significantly based on arches (mandible/maxilla) (P = .001), bone quality (P < .001), implant diameter (P = .032), and drilling protocol (P = .019). Median MBL was 0.05 mm (0.00; 0.24). A significant difference was found between the mandible and maxilla (P = .008) and between drilling protocols (P = .011). In particular, significantly higher MBL was found in the undersized drilling protocol. Multiple regression analysis showed that ITV was influenced by bone quality and implant diameter. MBL was influenced by bone quality, implant diameter, ITV, and the interaction between bone quality and ITV. It was estimated that MBL was greater with increased bone density and ITV. Conclusion: Excessive ITV in dense bone can cause negative marginal bone responses. A presurgical radiographic assessment and the perception of bone quality are necessary to select an optimal drilling protocol and to minimize surgical trauma.