The impact of surgical guide design and bone quality on heat generation during pilot implant site preparation: an in vitro study

Abstract

BackgroundSurgical guides restrict the flow of cooling agent to osteotomy site, which will lead to a temperature rise that provokes tissue injury. Few studies compared differences in the temperature changes between non-limiting ‘conventional’ and limiting ‘guided’ surgical guides during implant site preparation. The objective of this study was to investigate the difference in temperature changes during bone drilling for implant placement using non-limiting and limiting surgical guides at cortical and cancellous bone levels.MethodsForty-four bovine rib samples were used for implant bed preparation in this study with a minimum thickness of 11 mm was chosen for the ribs. The bone was stored in a freezer at 10 °C until it was used. On the day of the study, the bone was defrosted and soaked in water at 21 °C for three hours before embarking on drilling to make sure each sample was at the same temperature when tested. Forty-four bone specimens were prepared and randomly allocated to receive either a limiting or a non-limiting surgical guides (22 for each group). The osteotomy site was prepared by one operator following the manufacturer’s instructions, using limiting and non-limiting surgical guides. Temperature changes were recorded during implant bed preparation using thermocouples that fit into 7 mm-horizontal channels at two different depths (Coronally) and (Apically) at 1 mm distance from the osteotomy site. The data were tested for homogeneity of variances using Levene’s test, then data were analyzed using an Independent sample t-test and the significance level was set at P ≤ 0.05.ResultsThe mean temperature rise for all samples was 0.55 °C. The mean temperature rises for the limiting and non-limiting surgical guides were 0.80 °C and 0.33 °C respectively. There was a statistically significant difference in temperature rise between the limiting and non-limiting surgical guides (P = 0.008). In relation to position of temperature recording (coronal vs. apical), there was no significant difference (P > 0.05). No significant difference was noted between the two groups at cancellous bone level (P = 0.68), but the difference was significant at cortical bone level (P = 0.036).ConclusionLimiting surgical guides showed higher readings than non-limiting. However, for both techniques, temperature rise was not significant clinically and within a safe range.