ArticleBMC oral health2025
Evaluation of cutting edge integrity, surface degradation, and material loss in four implant drilling systems: an in vitro investigation in bovine rib bone.
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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundImplant drills are essential for precise osteotomy preparation, and their repeated use can affect surface integrity, sharpness, and material loss. This original study presents a comprehensive evaluation of four implant drill systems—conventional stainless steel drills (CS), hard-coated stainless steel drills (HCS), ceramic drills (CD), and tapered expansion drills (TE)—by assessing cutting edge wear, surface roughness, and material loss at defined usage intervals.
methodsA total of 160 osteotomies were performed on fresh bovine rib bone blocks using four different drill systems. Each group included 40 repetitions. Each drill was analyzed at baseline and after 10, 20, 30, and 40 osteotomies. Drilling was performed under standardized parameters (23 °C, 800 rpm, 2 kg axial load, 50 mL/min irrigation). Surface roughness was measured using a stylus-based contact profilometer. SEM was used for morphological inspection, and a precision analytical balance (± 0.0001 g) was used to detect material loss.
resultsNo significant material loss was observed in any group during the first 20 osteotomies. The ceramic drills demonstrated zero material loss and minimal surface wear across all time points. HCS drills showed the highest variability in mass loss (up to 136.5 µg), and TE drills exhibited visible edge degradation after 30 uses. SEM revealed progressive morphological changes, including edge rounding and microcracks, predominantly in HCS and TE groups. While differences between groups were not statistically significant, ceramic drills consistently demonstrated superior structural preservation.
conclusionRepeated use of implant drills results in gradual wear, particularly in metallic systems. Ceramic drills exhibited the most stable performance, suggesting their potential advantage for extended clinical use.
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.