• Journal of the Korean Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons
• /
• v.34 no.2
• /
• pp.180-186
• /
• 2008

Purpose: This study was performed to evaluate the effect of the implant recipient site preparation methods on primary stability of implants with the instruments of $Osstell^{TM}$ and $Periotest^{(R)}$ in the iliac bone of cadaver. Methods and materials: The 8 iliac bones in 4 cadavers and implants treated with resorbable blasting media (RBM) were used. $Periotest^{(R)}$ (Simens AG, Germany) and $Osstell^{TM}$ (Model 6 Resonance Frequency Analyser: Integration Diagnostics Ltd., Sweden) were used to measure primary stability of implants. Implants were inserted into the iliac crest of the cadaver. In control group, the recipient site was prepared according to the manufacturer's recommendation: 1.8 mm guide drill, 2.0 mm initial drill, 2.7 mm pilot drill, 2.7 mm twist drill, 3.0 mm twist drill, 3.3 mm pilot drill, 3.3 mm twist drill, and 3.3 mm countersink drill as well as tapping drill were used in order. In the group 1, implant recipient sites were prepared by sequentially drilling from 1.8 mm guide drill to 3.0 mm twist drill and then inserted implants without countersinking and tapping. In the group 2, implant recipient sites were prepared to 3.0 mm twist drill and countersink drill and then inserted implants without tapping. In the group 3, the sites were prepared to 3.0 mm twist drill and countersink drill as well as tapping drill. In the group 4, the sites were prepared to 3.3 mm twist drill. In the group 5, the sites were prepared to 3.3 mm twist drill and countersink drill. A total of 60 implants were placed (n=10). The stability was measured using $Osstell^{TM}$ and $Periotest^{(R)}$ mesiodistally and buccolingually. To compare the mean stability of each group statistically, One-way ANOVA was used and correlation of instrument were analyzed using SPSS 12.0. The results obtained were as follows; 1. The stability of group 1 measured using $Osstell^{TM}$ and $Periotest^{(R)}$ buccolingually showed the highest, and there are significant difference statistically between control group and experimental group 1,2,4 in each instruments respectively (p<0.05). 2. The stability of group 1 measured using $Osstell^{TM}$ and $Periotest^{(R)}$ mesiodistally showed the highest. There are significant difference statistically between control group and all experimental groups in $Osstell^{TM}$, and between control group and experimental group 1,2,3,4 (p<0.05). 3. There are high correlation between the measurements of $Osstell^{TM}$ and $Periotest^{(R)}$ (p<0.05). Conclusion: These results indicate that the primary stability of implant can be obtained by the recipient sites preparation with smaller diameter drill than that of implant or minimal drilling.

• Archives of Plastic Surgery
• /
• v.39 no.3
• /
• pp.253-256
• /
• 2012

A radial forearm free flap has been conventionally used for urethral reconstruction. However, aesthetic and functional complications occur frequently at the donor site. The use of a superficial circumflex iliac artery perforator (SCIP) flap can resolve these disadvantages. Here, we report our case with a review of literature. A 69-year-old man visited our hospital with multiple contusions of the abdomen and genital amputation. After necrotic tissue debridement, the length of the residual corpus carvernosum was 1.5 cm and that of the corpus spongiosum and urethra was 1 cm. For the reconstruction of the penis, a SCIP flap and anterolateral thigh free flap was performed. The primary closure was performed at the donor site. Three weeks postoperatively, the patient had a urethral foley catheter removed. The neourethra was functioning well without stricture. Four months postoperatively, the patient had no complications such as urethral stricture. A good recovery was also achieved with no aesthetic deficits at the donor site. SCIP flap is appropriate for urethral reconstruction. Because of its proximity to the recipient sites, it makes surgical preparation easier and the primary closure at the donor site available. It is also advantageous in that its location is almost unnoticeable.