# Bone Remodeling and Marginal Bone Loss of Simplified Versus Conventional Drilling: A Randomized Clinical Trial

## TL;DR

This study compares simplified and conventional drilling protocols for dental implants and finds no significant differences in bone loss or implant survival over two years.

## Contribution

The study provides clinical evidence that simplified drilling protocols do not compromise bone remodeling or implant stability compared to conventional methods.

## Key findings

- No significant differences in marginal bone loss were observed between simplified and conventional drilling protocols after 24 months.
- Both drilling protocols showed high implant survival rates with only one implant failure in the simplified group.
- Simplified drilling may reduce surgical complexity but raises concerns about heat generation and adaptability.

## Abstract

This study evaluates the influence of conventional versus simplified drilling protocols on bone remodeling after the osteointegration period, marginal bone loss (MBL), and primary implant stability. A randomized, double-blind clinical trial was conducted involving 44 implants in 37 patients over a two-year period. The primary outcome was peri-implant tissue stability, measured as MBL at baseline, 12 months, and 24 months. Secondary outcomes included implant stability, measured via insertion torque, and survival rates. The results indicated no significant differences in initial bone remodeling and MBL between groups after 24 months. Both protocols demonstrated high survival rates, with one implant failure recorded in the simplified protocol group. Although simplified drilling protocols may reduce surgical complexity, concerns about heat generation and reduced adaptability in osteotomy were described in the literature. This study concludes that drilling protocol choice does not significantly impact bone levels during osteointegration, crestal bone maintenance, or implant survival over 24 months, but further research is needed to explore long-term effects and prosthetic factors.