Effect of guide sleeve material, region, diameter, and number of times drills were used on the material loss from sleeves and drills used for surgical guides: An in vitro study

The Journal of Prosthetic Dentiistry

Published:April 05, 2021DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2020.12.036

 

Abstract

Statement of problem

How material loss from sleeves and drills is affected when different guide sleeve materials and different sizes of implant drills are used for different regions of surgical guides is unclear.

Purpose

The purpose of this in vitro study was to compare the amount of material loss from different guide sleeves (zirconia and cobalt-chromium) and drills of different diameters during osteotomy preparation in different regions.

Material and methods

Three tooth-supported surgical guides with sleeve holes positioned in the first premolar and second molar sites were prepared. Guide sleeves (Ø 2.20 mm, 3.40 mm, and 4.05 mm) were milled from zirconia (n=60) and cobalt-chromium (n=60) blocks. A total of 12 titanium nitride-coated stainless steel twisted drills (n=6 per sleeve material) of different diameters (Ø 2.00, 3.20, 3.85 mm) were used with corresponding sleeves during the drilling. The weight loss from the drills and the volume loss from the guide sleeves after drilling were analyzed by using multiple linear mixed effect models (α=.05).

Results

According to the 4-way ANOVA for volume loss from sleeves, no significant interaction was found among the 4 main effects (number of times a drill was used, region, diameter, and material), but interactions between the number of times a drill was used and diameter (P=.001) and between the number of times the drill was used and material were significant (P<.001). For weight loss from the drills, a significant interaction was detected between the number of times the drill was used and diameter (P=.024).

Conclusions

Less sleeve material was lost when zirconia sleeves were used. All sleeves had more material loss in the molar region than in the premolar region. The diameter had varying effects on the amount of material loss from drills and sleeves. The sleeve material and the region did not affect the material loss from drills.