Implant stability using piezoelectric bone surgery compared with conventional drilling: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Marginal Bone Loss and Treatment Complications with Mandibular Overdentures Retained by Two Immediate or Conventionally Loaded Implants—A Randomized Clinical Trial

This study aimed to assess marginal bone loss and complication rates of mandibular overdentures retained on two implants with conventional and immediate loading protocols. Twenty edentulous patients were treated with mandibular two-implant-retained overdentures and new complete maxillary dentures. In one half of the sample, the implants were loaded immediately by VulkanLoc® abutments. In the counterpart group, these abutments were connected to the implants two months after implant placement (conventional protocol). Treatment outcomes were evaluated at 2, 6, and 12 months after implant placement. According to the pre- and post-insertion radiographs, there was a mean marginal bone loss of 0.25–0.59 mm (CI 95%) after 13.4 ± 2.1 months of follow-up. There were no significant differences between groups. The failure rate (percentage of implants failing per year) was slightly higher in the conventional loading group (14.0 ± 32.7%) than in the immediate loading group (8.3 ± 18.0%). The findings of the present study suggested that there were no differences in marginal bone loss observed at one year for immediately loaded implants (0.40–0.39 mm) versus conventionally loaded implants (0.44- 0.36 mm) placed for the retention of mandibular overdentures. There were no differences in primary and secondary stability of immediately loaded versus conventional implants; however, in the conventional loading group, stability increased significantly between implant placement compared at both 6 and 12 months post-placement.

Stability and marginal bone loss in implants placed using piezoelectric osteotomy versus conventional drilling: systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

The main objective of this systematic review was to compare primary and secondary implant stability between placement with piezoelectric osteotomy and conventional drilling, comparing marginal bone losses as a secondary objective.

Material and Methods

An electronic search was conducted using PubMed (MEDLINE), Scopus, and Cochrane Library (Wiley) databases, besides a manual search.

Results

A total of 153 articles were retrieved, 39 from Pubmed, 44 from Scopus, and 70 from the Cochrane Library. After removing duplicates, 112 articles (1 from the manual search) were screened, and 9 were finally selected for qualitative and statistical analyses.

Conclusions

Piezoelectric surgery is a predictable alternative to conventional drilling for dental implant placement. Medium/long-term survival rates and marginal bone losses are similar between piezoelectric osteotomy and conventional drilling, and there is no difference in ISQ values for primary stability. However, implants placed with ultrasound showed a lower decrease in implant stability quotient (ISQ) during the osseointegration period and a higher ISQ value for secondary stability. This study contributes further information on peri-implant bone tissue at 3 and 6 months after implant placement with piezoelectric osteotomy or conventional drilling and provides an updated meta-analysis of comparative studies.

Key words:Piezosurgery, piezoelectric surgery, conventional drill, implant site preparation, dental implant, implant stability, marginal bone loss.

Use of Lasers and Piezoelectric in Intraoral Surgery

Laser therapy has been delivering good results for more than 30 years. Therapeutic effects are seen due to its ability to stimulate cell proliferation, revascularization, cell regeneration, local microcirculation, and vascular permeability; leading to edema reduction and analgesic effects. The piezoelectric system has been used in several surgeries recently, following the trend of minimally invasive surgery. The system consists of crystals undergoing deformation when exposed to electric current, resulting in an oscillating movement with ultrasound frequency. In oral surgery it is used in orthognathic and temporomandibular joint procedures, alveolar corticotomies, tumor excision, bone grafts, third molars, and dental implants.

Effects of Different Undersizing Site Preparations on Implant Stability

As immediate loading protocols are becoming more frequent, the primary stability of implants has become an essential criterion for the osseointegration of dental implants. Based on this, the objective of this study was to understand the influence of different undersized surgical preparation sites on the insertion torque (IT) and implant stability quotient (ISQ). Four different site-preparation protocols were performed on fresh humid type III bovine bone: one control, the standard protocol recommended by the manufacturer (P1), and three variations of undersized techniques (P2, P3 and P4). The implant used was VEGA by Klockner Implant System. The sample size was n = 40 for each of the four groups. A torquemeter was used to measure the IT, and the ISQ was measured with a Penguin RFA. Both variables showed a tendency to increase as the preparation technique was reduced, although not all the values were statistically significant (p < 0.05) when comparing with the standard preparation. The preparations without a cortical drill, P2 and P4, showed better results than those with a cortical drill. Given the limitations of this study, it can be concluded that reducing the implant preparation can increase both the IT and ISQ. Removing the cortical drill is an effective method for increasing implant stability, although it should be used carefully.

Piezoelectric Implant Site Preparation: Influence of Handpiece Movements on Temperature Elevation

Piezoelectric devices are widely used in oral surgical procedures, including implant site preparation. However, little is known about the influence of working movement on temperature elevation in bone. The aim of this study was to assess the effects of two different working cycles on temperature elevation during piezoelectric implant site preparation. Sixty osteotomies at a depth of 10 mm were performed on bone blocks of bovine ribs using a piezoelectric tip with external irrigation (IM1s, Mectron Medical Technology, Carasco, Italy). A mechanical positioning device was used to guarantee reproducible working and measuring conditions. Two different working cycles, of 4 and 6 s, respectively, were tested, including both longitudinal and rotational movements. Temperature was recorded in real time with a fiber optic thermometer and applied pressure was maintained under 150 g. For each test, the highest recorded temperature (T_max) and the mean temperature recorded from 30 s before to 30 s after the highest recorded temperature (T_±30) were extrapolated. Tests duration was also recorded. Both T_max and T_±30 were significantly higher in the '6 s cycles' group than the '4 s cycles' group (42.44 ± 7.3 °C vs. 37.24 ± 4.6 °C, p = 0.002; 37.24 ± 4.6 °C vs. 33.30 ± 3.3 °C, p = 0.003). Test duration was also significantly higher using 6 s cycles compared to 4 s cycles (143.17 ± 29.4 s vs. 119.80 ± 36.4 s, p = 0.002). The results of this study indicate that working cycles of 4 s effectively reduce heat generation and working time during piezoelectric implant site preparation.

Ultrasonic vs Drill Implant Site Preparation: Post-Operative Pain Measurement Through VAS, Swelling and Crestal Bone Remodeling: A Randomized Clinical Study

Background: Piezosurgery is a surgical procedure that is able to perform osteotomies by a micrometric and selective cut of the bone tissue. The objective of this investigation was to evaluate two different techniques; an ultrasonic device, and a drill approach for implant site preparation. Methods: A total of fifty patients were recruited for the randomized clinical trial to receive dental implants for fixed prosthetic restoration in the posterior mandible and were allotted to two groups. In Group A the implant site was prepared following a drilling technique, while in Group B the implant site was prepared using an ultrasonic device; moreover, the operative duration was recorded. Postoperative pain and swelling were evaluated at 1, 2, 4, and 6 days. The crestal bone resorption was measured at 3 months from implant placement by a three-dimensional tomography evaluation. Results: The findings suggest that osteotomies performed by an ultrasonic device cause less pain and swelling. On the other hand, the piezoelectric preparation was characterized by a significative increase in the operative time. No statistical differences in crestal bone resorption were evident in the two different approaches. Conclusions: According to the outcome of the study, ultrasonic implant bed preparation can be used with success in implantology and could be considered a suitable alternative to traditional drilling techniques for dental fixture placement.