Bone sampling method using angular surgical tip with retractor protector

INTRODUCTION. Today, pronounced atrophic changes in the alveolar jaws processes are often diagnosed, requiring bone tissue expansion using autogenic bone tissues of the patient, where various medical instruments and methods are used. Meanwhile, the problems of their improvement, minimizing the trauma of interventions, increasing regenerative processes and clinical effectiveness, have not been fully resolved. Thus, our research related to the optimization of medical instruments and methods remains relevant.

AIM is optimization of bone augmentation in patients using the developed method of bone tissue sampling using an angular surgical tip with a protector-retractor with severe atrophy of the alveolar processes in preparation for dental implantation.

MATERIALS AND METHODS. We used the developed device and method for creating cortical bone cuts during bone autograft sampling in bone plastic using an angular surgical tip with a retractor protector (patent No. 233201 dated 11.04.2025, published by 11.04.2025 Buhl. No. 11; Patent Application 2025120686, W25048732, issued 27.07.2025). The research was carried out at the surgical department of the dental clinic of North-Eastern Federal University and dental clinic “Avandent” (Yakutsk). Inclusion criteria in the research were associated with the presence of partial secondary adentia with marked alveolar atrophy. Exclusion criteria: generalized pathologies of decompensated form, malignant neoplasms, diseases of the hematopoietic system and intolerance to local anesthetics. Each patient gave his written consent for interventions. There were 2 groups: the main group – 105 patients, aged 42–68 years old; control group – 33, aged 40-69 years old using a protective device made of D.M. Mukhamadiev’s plastic (patent RU 213 284 U1, A61S 1/16 of 05.09.2022). Statistical processing of the material was carried out according to standard methods.

RESULTS. The results characterized low-trauma, safety and efficiency of surgical interventions, and design features of developed protector-retractor with metal body and shortened irrigation tube for angular surgical tip provide tight fixation, as well as minimal delamination of mucoperiosteal flap, reusability of practical application and convenience of pre-sterilization cleaning. Whereas, the plastic tread does not have these advantages due to the design features and material of manufacture.

CONCLUSIONS. The developed method provides certain advantages associated with the presence of a thin metal protector-retractor body for the angular surgical tip, which provides the best view of the surgical field, increases the safety and effectiveness of surgical interventions.

1. Kulakov A.A., Gvetadze R.Sh., Brailovskaia T.V., Khar’kova A.A, Dzikovitskaya L.S. Modern approaches to dental implants placement in deficient alveolar bone. Stomatology. 2017;96(1):43–45. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.17116/stomat201796143-45

2. Kulakov A.A., Grebnev G.A., Brailovskaya T.V., Bagnenko A.S., Ilyin S.V., Ishniyazova A.I. Long-term results of dental implantation in military personnel. Stomatology. 2022;101(2):31–35. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.17116/stomat202210102131

3. Polupan P.V., Sipkin A.M., Modina T.N. Osteoplasty in oral surgery: outcomes, complications, success factors, and risks classification. Clinical Dentistry (Russia). 2022;25(1):58–65. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.37988/1811-153X_2022_1_58

4. Polupan P.V., Sipkin A.M., Tonkih-Podolskaya O.A., Klestrup D.V., Chumakov A.V. Mathematical model of bone grafting risk prediction in the oral cavity and success factors. Russian Journal of Stomatology. 2023;16(3):30–37. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.17116/rosstomat20231603130

5. Rahim D.F.A., Adam S.A.N., Elarab A.E., Rahman A.R.A. Evaluation of implant stability and marginal bone loss in immediate implant using “nano bone” versus “autogenous bone” for the treatment of patients with unrestorable single tooth: A randomized controlled trial. Journal of Osseointegration. 2019;11(2):8–17.

6. Ebrakhim M., Moiseev D.A., Strelnikov V.N., Tsagaraeva T.G., Salloum A., Ogloblin A.A. et al. Assessment of risk factors and causes of inflammatory changes in the oral mucosa and bone tissue of the jaws surrounding dental implants. Russian Journal of Operative Surgery and Clinical Anatomy. 2024;8(3):48–57. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.17116/operhirurg2024803148

7. Ebrakhim M., Strelnikov V.N., Moiseev D.A., Salloum A., Pulatova R.S., Vokhidov U.G., Zhusupbekov S.Zh. Analysis of complications of dental treatment using orthopedic structures with different types of fixation on dental implants. Russian Journal of Stomatology. 2025;18(1):23–29. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.17116/rosstomat20251801123

8. Brailovskaya T.V., Nadtochiy A.G., Gadzhikulieva A.K., Abayev Z.M. The possibility of obtaining bone autograft from the anterior palate to restore limited bone defects. Stomatology. 2023;102(5):40–49. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.17116/stomat202310205140

9. Khory F., Antoun H., Missika P. Bone Augmentation in Oral Implantology. Quintessence Pub Co; 2007. 436 p.