الفهرس 
INTRODUCTIONOnly 14 pages are availabe for public view
 |  | from | 190 |  |  |
| | | from | 190 | | |
Abstract
Tooth extraction is usually followed by alveolar bone resorption both in height and width. In case of poor bone density, such as upper human jaw the insufficient bone amount around the implants could negatively influence the bone volume percentage(%BV) and the initial bone-to-implant contact (%BIC), many surgical techniques are available to improve the bone density either by the alveolar ridge expansion technique and bone grafting procedure.
Objectives: The essential goal of this study is to compare and measure the changes in the peri-implant bone density, ridge width gained, marginal bone height radiographically, also, compare and evaluate the postoperative pain level, and implant stability clinically between the motor driven expanders and densifying burs with simultaneous dental implant placement.
Methods: 14 patients between the age 25 and 45 were randomly selected for implant placement in the anterior region from the inpatient clinic of the Oral and Maxillofacial Department, Faculty of Dentistry, Alexandria University, they divided into two groups, 7 patients were treated by the motor- driven expanders’ technique (control group), and 7 patients were treated by the osseodensification technique (study group) with simultaneous implant placement. Patients were followed up clinically regarding the postoperative pain and implant stability. Also, the radiographic evaluation was performed immediately after surgery and after 6 months to assess peri-implant bone density, alveolar ridge width gained, and marginal bone height.
Results: In the clinical results: although the postoperative pain level in the study group (group II) was lower than the control group (group I), there was no significant difference statistically between the two groups, regarding the implant stability; the study concluded that the Osseodensification technique achieved higher primary and secondary implant stability than the rotary expanders’ technique but without significant difference. In the radiographical results: the average bone densities between (group I) and (group II) in the evaluation intervals (pre-operative, immediate postoperative, and 6 months post-operative) showed no statistically significant difference. In group I, there was a significant increase in the peri-implant bone density in all evaluation periods, where (p ˂ 0.001). And in group II also, there was an increase in the peri-implant bone density in all evaluation periods, where p = 0.005). so the two techniques increased the peri-implant bone density, but without a significant difference between them. Regarding the marginal bone height: There was no significant difference in the mean bone loss around implants between the two groups in six months. Regarding the alveolar ridge width: In a comparison of the amount of ridge width gained between the (Control group) and the (Study group) in the immediate postoperative period, there was a significant difference in the amount of alveolar ridge width gained between the two groups, where the mean value of the alveolar ridge width in group I was 6.84 ± 0.50, while in group II the mean value of the ridge width was 7.45 ± 0.54.
Conclusion: Both rotary expanders’ and osseodensification techniques had improved the peri-implant bone density, implant stability, but without a significant difference between them. The osseodensification technique achieved more ridge expansion in comparison to the rotary expanders’ technique in the immediate post-operative period.