ArticleBMC oral health2025
Comparative evaluation of intraosseous temperature and drilling time using four different drill designs in implant site preparation.
Article in BMC oral health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Application of fiber bragg grating sensing to thermal variation during dental implant site preparation: an in vitro study.BMC oral health · 2026Article
- Optimisation strategies for intramedullary nailing parameters in subtrochanteric fractures of the femur: a multimodal assessment based on finite element and biomechanical experiments.International journal of surgery (London, England) · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe aim of this study was to compare the thermal effects and drilling efficiency of four different implant osteotomy systems -conventional stainless steel drills (CS), velodrills (VD), ceramic drills (CD), and bone-enhancing drills (BE)- under standardized experimental conditions.
methodsA total of 160 osteotomies were performed on fresh bovine rib bone blocks using four different drill systems. Each group included 40 repetitions. A standardized protocol was applied, including constant irrigation (50 ml/min), drilling speed (800 rpm), and axial load (2 kg). Each drill was used for the entire 40 repetitions per system. However, all drills were inspected before and after the experiments to ensure no visible damage, and the performance decline was analyzed over time. Temperature changes on the bone surface were recorded using a 14-bit digital infrared thermal camera. Drilling time was measured for each osteotomy. Statistical analysis was conducted using Dunn’s multiple comparisons test to evaluate differences between groups.
resultsThe ceramic drill group (CD) exhibited the highest mean temperature (24.82 ± 2.69 °C) and the longest mean drilling time (17.07 ± 6.82 s). The conventional stainless steel drill (CS), velodrill (VD), and bone-enhancing drill (BE) systems demonstrated significantly shorter drilling times and lower temperature values. Statistically significant differences in temperature and drilling time were observed between CD and other systems (p < 0.0001). While all systems remained below the critical thermal threshold for bone necrosis, ceramic drills were significantly associated with greater thermal load and procedural duration (p < 0.0001).
conclusionUnder standardized experimental conditions, all drill systems remained within safe thermal limits. However, ceramic drills generated more heat and required significantly longer drilling times compared to other systems. Conventional stainless steel and velodrill systems demonstrated promising thermal control and efficiency in this in vitro setting, which may inform clinical decisions. However, further validation including drill wear rate and biological response is necessary before clinical endorsement.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.