Comparative Analysis of Cutting Efficiency and Surface Maintenance Between Different Types of Implant Drills: An In Vitro Study Celso João Hochscheidt, DDS, MS,* Roberto Hideo Shimizu, DDS, MS, PhD,† Augusto Ricardo Andrighetto, DDS, MS, PhD,‡ Rodrigo Pierezan, Eng, MS,§ Geninho Thomé, DDS, MS, PhD,¶ and Rafael Salatti, Engk T he success of bone fixation de- pends directly on the cutting power and friction heat generated by drills or burs during surgical wound bed preparation, 1,2 which, in turn, seem to be related to the component material and surface treatment of the cutting tool. 3 Furthermore, it is known that a minimally traumatic surgical tech- nique is an essential prerequisite for successful osseointegration. 1,4 With advances in materials engi- neering, several technologies have re- newed the practice of implant dentistry, such as new surface treatments that increased drill efficiency and durabil- ity. 5,6 Currently, dental implant prepa- ration is often performed using stainless steel drills coated with titanium nitride (TiN) or diamond-like carbon (DLC), and, more recently, with ceramic drills. 7 Ceramic materials have several physi- cochemical advantages, such as resis- tance to abrasion, corrosion, and high temperatures, as well as low chemical affinity. 8,9 Some combinations of zirco- nia with yttrium and magnesium oxides have improved its mechanical proper- ties, increasing cutting power, fracture strength, and wear resistance, while providing an elastic modulus similar to that of steel and excellent biocompat- ibility. 10–14 Mixed ceramics, such as aluminum-toughened zirconia (ATZ), provide substantially improved flexural and fracture strength. 15,16 Several studies have evaluated ma- terials for dental implant drilling and milling tools with a view to improved *Master of Sciences in Implant Dentistry, Instituto Latino Americano de Pesquisa e Ensino Odontológico (ILAPEO), Curitiba, PR, Brazil; Private Practice, Technical Manager, Clínica Top Odontologia, Ponta Grossa, PR, Brazil. †Doctor of Sciences in Orthodontics, Universidade Estadual Paulista (UNESP), Araraquara, SP, Brazil; Coordinator, Master’s Program in Orthodontics; Professor, Department of Orthodontics, ILAPEO, Curitiba, PR, Brazil. ‡Doctor of Sciences in Orthodontics, Universidade de São Paulo (USP), São Paulo, SP, Brazil; Professor, Graduate Programs in Orthodontics and Implant Dentistry, Department of Orthodontics, ILAPEO, Curitiba, PR, Brazil. §Professor, Master of Sciences in Production and Systems Engineering, Department of Mechatronics, Control and Automation, Pontifícia Universidade Católica do Paraná (PUCPR); Instructor, Sociedade Ensino Técnico (Ensitec), Curitiba, PR, Brazil. ¶Doctor of Dental Surgery, Research Center São Leopoldo Mandic Dental; R&D Director, ILAPEO, Curitiba, PR, Brazil; Chief Scientific Officer, Neodent Osseointegrated Implants, Curitiba, PR, Brazil. kAnalyst, Department of Research, Development, and Innovation, Neodent Osseointegrated Implants, Curitiba, PR, Brazil. Reprint requests and correspondence to: Celso João Hochscheidt, DDS, MS, Clínica Top Odontologia, Rua Coronel Bittencourt, 618, Centro, 84010-290dPonta Grossa, PR, Brazil, Phone: +55-42-3223 4438/3025 6762, Fax: +55(42)3025 6762. E-mail: dr. celsohochscheidt@gmail.com ISSN 1056-6163/17/02605-723 Implant Dentistry Volume 26  Number 5 Copyright © 2017 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved. DOI: 10.1097/ID.0000000000000645 Introduction: This study evalu- ated cutting efficiency (CE) and linear wear of dental implant drills after 450 standardized osteotomies on bovine ribs. Diamond-like carbon–coated steel drills (SG), acid-treated steel drills (EG), and ceramic drills (ZG) were divided into 6 subgroups according to the num- ber of uses. Materials and Methods: A robot-controlled program performed systematic instrumentation, timing, axial loading, and managed feed rate. CE was recorded in a polyure- thane resin blank and end wear (VB Bmax ) was analyzed under stereo microscopy. Results: After osteotomies in beef ribs, CE for the Ø2.0-mm drill decreased 10.2% in SG and 10.9% in ZG; for the Ø3.0-mm drill, CE decreased 30.6% in SG, 8.5% in ZG, and improved in EG. The great- est wear occurred in Ø2.0-mm drills; ZG drills (Ø3.0 mm) exhibited only edge frittering, as confirmed on scanning electron microscopy. Conclusion: After 50 exposures to mechanical loads, steel and ceramic drills lost CE. Whereas cutting and thermal performance improved in experimental drills, the Ø2.0-mm drill exhibited the most signs of wear proportional to use. These findings suggest that, with the methodology employed, the life of these drills exceeds 50 osteotomies. (Implant Dent 2017;26:723–729) Key Words: osteotomy, perfor- mance testing, dental implants, tribology HOCHSCHEIDT ET AL IMPLANT DENTISTRY /VOLUME 26, NUMBER 5 2017 723 Copyright Ó 2017 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.