Conventional Drilling Versus Piezosurgery for Implant Site Preparation: A Meta-Analysis

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.

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.