Evaluation of immediate cell viability and repair of osteotomies for implants using drills and piezosurgery. A randomized, prospective, and controlled rabbit study

The influence of electrical high-speed rotation on mandibular third molar surgeries: a prospective, randomized, split-mouth clinical and radiographic study

The aim of this split-mouth randomized clinical trial was to evaluate the clinical outcomes (operative time, edema, trismus, and pain), the immediate histological effects, the alveolar repair (2 and 4 months), and the quality of life after the extraction of impacted third molars using high-speed pneumatic and electrical rotation. Sixteen patients underwent extraction of the two mandibular third molars with a minimum interval of 15 days. On one side of the participant's mouth, high-speed pneumatic rotation was used (Control Group-CG) while for the other side, high-speed electrical rotation was used (Study Group-SG). Statistical analysis included ANOVA repeated measures and Pearson correlations. SG group showed: shorter operative time (p = 0.019), less pain (p = 0.034), swelling (p < 0.001) and trismus (p = 0.025) on the 1st postoperative day; less pain (p = 0.034) and trismus (p = 0.010) on the 3rd postoperative day; less trismus (p = 0.032) on the 7th postoperative day; and better quality of life (p = 0.007). No differences were observed for peripheral bone damage or bone density of alveolar repair at 2 and 4 months between groups. Electric high-speed rotation provided better postoperative clinical parameters of pain, edema and trismus when compared with pneumatic high-speed rotation for mandibular third molar surgery.Trial registration: Brazilian Registry of Clinical Trials registration number RBR-4xyqhqm ( https://ensaiosclinicos.gov.br/rg/RBR-4xyqhqm ).

Evaluation of implant site preparation with piezosurgery versus conventional drills in terms of operation time, implant stability and bone density (randomized controlled clinical trial- split mouth design)

BACKGROUND

The preparation of the implant bed has a major influence on the success rate and long-term survival of dental implants. Piezoelectric devices and special implant drilling inserts are now emerging to replace conventional drills showing improved bone response and healing around implants. The purpose of this study is to compare the piezoelectric inserts versus the traditional drills for implant site preparation.

METHODS

Twelve male patients who received a total of twenty-four dental implants have been selected to participate in this split-mouth clinical trial. Each patient received two implants; one installed after piezosurgery assisted osteotomy, while the contralateral side received the implant with the original drilling protocol. The timing of surgery, implant stability, and bone density around the installed dental implants have been evaluated during a follow-up period extended to 4 months.

RESULTS

a significant difference in terms of time of surgery (p < 0.005) and in implant stability at 4 months (p = 0.024) on the study side, while a non-statistical significance in terms of bone density was detected (p = 0.468).

CONCLUSION

The piezoelectric implant site drilling protocol seemed to be a reliable and repeatable technique. Despite the limited sample size and lengthier operative time, the piezoelectric inserts enhanced bone quality and implant stability. Clinical trial registration Current Controlled Trials (ClinicalTrials.gov) https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT05512273 ; the date of registration: 23/08/2022. Retrospectively registered.

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.

Healing at implants installed in osteotomies prepared either with a piezoelectric device or drills: an experimental study in dogs

OBJECTIVE

To compare osseointegration and marginal bone level at implants placed in osteotomies prepared with either conventional drills or a piezoelectric device.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Three months after the extraction of all mandibular premolars and first molars, two recipient sites were selected. The osteotomies were randomly prepared with either conventional drills (drill sites) or a piezoelectric device (piezoelectric sites). Implants were installed and a submerged healing was allowed. The animals were euthanized in groups of six after 4 and 8 weeks of healing. Biopsies were obtained for histological preparation. Coronal level of osseointegration (bone level) and bone-to-implant contact percentage (BIC%) were evaluated.

RESULTS

After 4 weeks of healing, the bone level was 0.6 ± 0.9 mm for the piezoelectric sites and 1.6 ± 0.7 mm for the drill sites (p = 0.173). After 8 weeks, the respective measures were 0.9 ± 0.3 mm and 1.0 ± 1.1 mm (p = 0.917). After 4 weeks of healing, a new bone apposed onto the implant surface was found at fractions of 54.9 ± 6.7% and 55.1 ± 16.6% for the piezoelectric and the drill sites, respectively (p = 0.674). The respective total bone fractions, including new and old bone, was 64.0 ± 4.8% and 63.4 ± 20.4% (p = 0.917). After 8 weeks, a new bone increased to 67.4 ± 6.7% and 62.9 ± 12.5% for the piezoelectric and the drill sites, respectively (p = 0.463). The respective total bone fractions were 70.4 ± 5.5% and 67.8 ± 12.1% (p = 0.753).

CONCLUSIONS

The use of a piezoelectric device for implant site preparation is a safe procedure that allows a proper integration since the early periods of healing similar to that observed using conventional drills.