ArticleBMC oral health2025
Thermal analysis of a dry cooling method in a dental implant drilling procedure: an in vitro randomized study.
Article in BMC oral health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundExcessive temperature rise during drilling can lead to thermal bone damage and compromise implant success. This in vitro study aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of the newly introduced "dry cooling" method to control heat generation during dental implant osteotomy using different hand pressure.
methodsStandardized osteotomies (Ø4.1 mm, 10 mm depth) were performed on bovine rib bone blocks using two cooling methods-dry cooling (DC) and saline cooling (SC)-and two hand pressure levels: low pressure (LP) and high pressure (HP), resulting in four experimental groups (DC-LP = Group A, DC-HP = Group B, SC-LP = Group C, SC-HP = Group D; n = 30 per group). The DC setup employed a closed-loop thermoelectric system based on a Peltier module. Real-time temperature changes were recorded using thermocouples. Bone particles were weighed, and drilling time was measured. In statistical analysis, whether the data conformed to normal distribution was evaluated with the kurtosis-skewness test. The relationship between cooling method and hand pressure and temperature was evaluated with the ANOVA test. Tukey test was used for multiple comparisons. T-test was used for comparison between independent groups and the relationships between variables were analyzed with the Pearson correlation test. The statistical significance level in the study was determined as p < 0.05.
resultsSignificant differences in temperature increase were observed between the groups (p < 0.001). Group A had the lowest temperature increase (2.00 ± 0.84 °C) and the lowest final temperature (23.41 ± 1.23 °C), while Group D had the highest temperature increase (5.45 ± 0.90 °C) and the highest final temperature (26.38 ± 1.03 °C). Bone particle yield differed significantly depending on the cooling method used (p < 0.001).
conclusionsTo prevent a temperature rise during dental implant osteotomy, DC may provide better temperature stabilization in specimens with high cortical content than external cooling with saline. Further studies are needed to optimize the effects of the DC method.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion 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 OpenQuestion graph.