The Effects of Clockwise and Counterclockwise Conventional and Osseodensification Drilling on the Dimensions,...

Purpose: To compare the effects of regular implant drills to osseodensifying drills used in clockwise and counterclockwise motions on bone dimension change and primary implant stability. Materials and Methods: A total of 40 bone models were made (20 × 15 × 4 mm) from porcine tibia to represent implants placed in soft bone. Implant osteotomies were prepared in the bone models using one of the following techniques: (1) regular implant drills in a clockwise direction (group A), (2) regular implant drills in a counterclockwise direction (group B), (3) osseodensifying drills in a clockwise direction (group C), and (4) osseodensifying drills in a counterclockwise direction (group D). Bone-level tapered titanium alloy implants (4.1 × 10 mm) were placed following osteotomy creation. The implant stability quotient (ISQ) was measured after implant placement. Each bone model was scanned with an optical scanner to convert to Standard Tessellation Language (STL) files before and after the osteotomy creation. Presurgical and postsurgical STL files were superimposed, and the dimensional changes were measured at 1, 3, and 7 mm from the crestal bone. Histomorphometric analysis was done, and bone-to-implant contact percentage (BIC%) was calculated. Results: There were no significant differences in ISQ values (P = .239) between any of the groups. Histomorphometric analysis showed implants in group D had significantly higher BIC% than groups A (P = .020) and B (P = .009). The amount of bone expansion decreased with distance from the crest (P < .001). Groups B (P = .039) and D (P = .001) showed significant expansions at all levels compared with group A. No other statistically significant differences in dimensional change were found between groups. Conclusion: Both regular and osseodensification burs used in a counterclockwise motion contribute to expansion of bone dimension compared to conventional drilling methods.