Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 8623; doi:10.3390/app10238623
Alessandro Antonelli 1,* , Francesco Bennardo 1 , Ylenia Brancaccio 1, Selene Barone 1 , Felice Femiano 2 , Ludovica Nucci 2, Giuseppe Minervini 2 , Leonzio Fortunato 1 , Ferdinando Attanasio 1 and Amerigo Giudice 1
1 Department of Health Sciences, School of Dentistry, Magna Græcia University of Catanzaro, 88100 Catanzaro, Italy; (F.B.); (Y.B.); (S.B.); (L.F.); (F.A.); (A.G.)
2 Multidisciplinary Department of Medical-Surgical and Dental Specialties, University of Campania, Luigi Vanvitelli, 80138 Naples, Italy; (F.F.); (L.N.); (G.M.)
* Correspondence:; Tel.: +0961-712446


Background: This study aims to analyze bone compaction and osseodensification techniques and to investigate how cancellous bone compaction could influence primary implant stability (PS). Methods: Two dierent surgical protocols (bone compactors—BC; osseodensification drills—OD) were compared by placing 20 implants into 20 fresh pig ribs for each procedure. Peak insertion torque (PIT) and peak removal torque (PRT) were investigated using an MGT-12 digital torque gauge, and implant stability quotient (ISQ) was analyzed using an Osstell® Beacon device. Results: Analysis of our data (T-test p < 0.05) evidenced no statistically significant dierence between BC and OD in terms of PIT (p = 0.33) or ISQ (p = 0.97). The comparison of PRT values showed a statistically significant dierence between BC and OD protocols (p = 0.009). Conclusions: Cancellous bone compaction seems to improve PS, preserving a significant amount of bone and evenly spreading trabeculae on the entire implant site. Although the PIT and ISQ values obtained are similar, the PRT values suggest a better biological response from the surrounding bone tissue. Nevertheless, a larger sample and further in vivo studies are necessary to validate the usefulness of this protocol in several clinical settings.