{"id":{"repo_id":"milano","oai_identifier":"oai:air.unimi.it:2434/1024850"},"canonical_url":"https://search.dev.ndltd.org/etd/milano/oai:air.unimi.it:2434/1024850","repository":{"repo_id":"milano","name":"Università degli Studi di Milano","base_url":"https://air.unimi.it/oai/request"},"display":{"title":"DIFFERENT TECHNIQUES FOR DENTAL IMPLANTS SITE PREPARATION: A CONTROLLED CLINICAL TRIAL","abstract":"Dental implants should be considered a highly predictable long-term and evidence-based treatment option for single, partial, and complete edentulism of the jaws, as indicated by numerous scientific articles. The primary aim of the present study was to determine whether the application of one implant site preparation protocol (“Step drilling sequence”) could lead to a significantly lower marginal bone resorption as compared to another protocol (“Straight drilling sequence”) at 1-year follow-up. The secondary aims were to evaluate if the tested protocol (Step drilling sequence) could modify the clinical and/or patient-centered variables We included and treated 60 subjects, for a total of 86 implants. We found no evidence of a difference in bone resorption, which increased significantly over time, between the two groups. Regarding the secondary outcomes, no statistically significant difference was observed between the test group and the control group, neither for peri-implant probing depth (PD), for bleeding index (BI), plaque index (PI) nor for the quality of life. In conclusion, from a purely biological perspective, there is currently no evidence in favor of using a step drill over a traditional straight drill. However, from a clinical standpoint, the use of step drills is advantageous for operator convenience compared to traditional drills.","abstract_html":"Dental implants should be considered a highly predictable long-term and evidence-based treatment option for single, partial, and complete edentulism of the jaws, as indicated by numerous scientific articles. The primary aim of the present study was to determine whether the application of one implant site preparation protocol (“Step drilling sequence”) could lead to a significantly lower marginal bone resorption as compared to another protocol (“Straight drilling sequence”) at 1-year follow-up. The secondary aims were to evaluate if the tested protocol (Step drilling sequence) could modify the clinical and/or patient-centered variables We included and treated 60 subjects, for a total of 86 implants. We found no evidence of a difference in bone resorption, which increased significantly over time, between the two groups. Regarding the secondary outcomes, no statistically significant difference was observed between the test group and the control group, neither for peri-implant probing depth (PD), for bleeding index (BI), plaque index (PI) nor for the quality of life. In conclusion, from a purely biological perspective, there is currently no evidence in favor of using a step drill over a traditional straight drill. However, from a clinical standpoint, the use of step drills is advantageous for operator convenience compared to traditional drills.","abstract_has_math":false,"creators":["MORANDI, BENEDETTA"],"institution":"Università degli Studi di Milano","degree_name":null,"degree_level":null,"degree_discipline":null,"degree_department":null,"school":null,"contributors":["tutor: S. Taschieri ; coordinatore: M. Del Fabbro","B. Morandi","TASCHIERI, SILVIO LUIGI MARIA","DEL FABBRO, MASSIMO"],"advisors":[],"committee_chairs":[],"committee_members":[],"year":2024,"date_issued":"2024-01-23","date_published":"2024-01-23","updated_at":"2026-07-27T20:18:46Z","subjects":["Implant","Implant therapy","Bone resorption","Marginal Bone Loss","Settore MED/28 - Malattie Odontostomatologiche"],"languages":["eng"],"rights":["info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess"],"rights_urls":[],"identifier_entries":[{"key":"dc:identifier","label":"Identifier","values":["http://dx.doi.org/10.13130/morandi-benedetta_phd2024-01-23","10.13130/morandi-benedetta_phd2024-01-23"],"render_values":[{"text":"http://dx.doi.org/10.13130/morandi-benedetta_phd2024-01-23","href":"http://dx.doi.org/10.13130/morandi-benedetta_phd2024-01-23","code":true},{"text":"10.13130/morandi-benedetta_phd2024-01-23","href":"https://doi.org/10.13130/morandi-benedetta_phd2024-01-23","code":true}]}]},"links":{"outbound_url":"https://hdl.handle.net/2434/1024850","outbound_label":"Handle","outbound_source":"dc:identifier"},"metadata_groups":[{"id":"people","label":"People","entries":[{"key":"dc:contributor","label":"Contributor","values":["tutor: S. Taschieri ; coordinatore: M. Del Fabbro","B. Morandi","TASCHIERI, SILVIO LUIGI MARIA","DEL FABBRO, MASSIMO"]},{"key":"dc:creator","label":"Author","values":["MORANDI, BENEDETTA"]}]},{"id":"academic_context","label":"Academic Context","entries":[{"key":"dc:date","label":"Dc Date","values":["2024-01-23"]},{"key":"dc:publisher","label":"Institution","values":["Università degli Studi di Milano","place:Milano"]},{"key":"dc:relation","label":"Dc Relation","values":["numberofpages:103"]},{"key":"dc:type","label":"Dc Type","values":["info:eu-repo/semantics/doctoralThesis"]}]},{"id":"subjects_keywords","label":"Subjects and Keywords","entries":[{"key":"dc:subject","label":"Dc Subject","values":["Implant","Implant therapy","Bone resorption","Marginal Bone Loss","Settore MED/28 - Malattie Odontostomatologiche"]}]},{"id":"language_rights","label":"Language and Rights","entries":[{"key":"dc:language","label":"Dc Language","values":["eng"]},{"key":"dc:rights","label":"Dc Rights","values":["info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess"]}]},{"id":"identifiers","label":"Identifiers","entries":[{"key":"dc:identifier","label":"Identifier","values":["https://hdl.handle.net/2434/1024850","http://dx.doi.org/10.13130/morandi-benedetta_phd2024-01-23","10.13130/morandi-benedetta_phd2024-01-23"]}]},{"id":"additional","label":"Additional Metadata","entries":[{"key":"dc:description","label":"Description","values":["Dental implants should be considered a highly predictable long-term and evidence-based treatment option for single, partial, and complete edentulism of the jaws, as indicated by numerous scientific articles. The primary aim of the present study was to determine whether the application of one implant site preparation protocol (“Step drilling sequence”) could lead to a significantly lower marginal bone resorption as compared to another protocol (“Straight drilling sequence”) at 1-year follow-up. The secondary aims were to evaluate if the tested protocol (Step drilling sequence) could modify the clinical and/or patient-centered variables We included and treated 60 subjects, for a total of 86 implants. We found no evidence of a difference in bone resorption, which increased significantly over time, between the two groups. Regarding the secondary outcomes, no statistically significant difference was observed between the test group and the control group, neither for peri-implant probing depth (PD), for bleeding index (BI), plaque index (PI) nor for the quality of life. In conclusion, from a purely biological perspective, there is currently no evidence in favor of using a step drill over a traditional straight drill. However, from a clinical standpoint, the use of step drills is advantageous for operator convenience compared to traditional drills."]},{"key":"dc:title","label":"Title","values":["DIFFERENT TECHNIQUES FOR DENTAL IMPLANTS SITE PREPARATION: A CONTROLLED CLINICAL TRIAL"]}]}],"canonical_facts":{"dc:contributor":["tutor: S. Taschieri ; coordinatore: M. Del Fabbro","B. Morandi","TASCHIERI, SILVIO LUIGI MARIA","DEL FABBRO, MASSIMO"],"dc:creator":["MORANDI, BENEDETTA"],"dc:date":["2024-01-23"],"dc:description":["Dental implants should be considered a highly predictable long-term and evidence-based treatment option for single, partial, and complete edentulism of the jaws, as indicated by numerous scientific articles. The primary aim of the present study was to determine whether the application of one implant site preparation protocol (“Step drilling sequence”) could lead to a significantly lower marginal bone resorption as compared to another protocol (“Straight drilling sequence”) at 1-year follow-up. The secondary aims were to evaluate if the tested protocol (Step drilling sequence) could modify the clinical and/or patient-centered variables We included and treated 60 subjects, for a total of 86 implants. We found no evidence of a difference in bone resorption, which increased significantly over time, between the two groups. Regarding the secondary outcomes, no statistically significant difference was observed between the test group and the control group, neither for peri-implant probing depth (PD), for bleeding index (BI), plaque index (PI) nor for the quality of life. In conclusion, from a purely biological perspective, there is currently no evidence in favor of using a step drill over a traditional straight drill. However, from a clinical standpoint, the use of step drills is advantageous for operator convenience compared to traditional drills."],"dc:identifier":["https://hdl.handle.net/2434/1024850","http://dx.doi.org/10.13130/morandi-benedetta_phd2024-01-23","10.13130/morandi-benedetta_phd2024-01-23"],"dc:language":["eng"],"dc:publisher":["Università degli Studi di Milano","place:Milano"],"dc:relation":["numberofpages:103"],"dc:rights":["info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess"],"dc:subject":["Implant","Implant therapy","Bone resorption","Marginal Bone Loss","Settore MED/28 - Malattie Odontostomatologiche"],"dc:title":["DIFFERENT TECHNIQUES FOR DENTAL IMPLANTS SITE PREPARATION: A CONTROLLED CLINICAL TRIAL"],"dc:type":["info:eu-repo/semantics/doctoralThesis"]},"updated_at":"2026-07-27T20:18:46Z"}