Effects of Piezoelectric Surgery on Implant Stability and Marginal Bone Level: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis
Supriya S Kaule, Surekha Rathod, Pranjali V Bawankar, Abhay P Kolte
Conventional drilling, Implant site preparation, Implant stability quotient, Marginal bone loss, Osseointegration, Piezoelectric surgery
Citation Information :
Kaule SS, Rathod S, Bawankar PV, Kolte AP. Effects of Piezoelectric Surgery on Implant Stability and Marginal Bone Level: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. World J Dent 2023; 14 (10):918-925.
Aim: The goal of this literature review and meta-analysis was to compare piezoelectric surgery to conventional surgery on parameters of both implant stability and marginal bone loss (MBL) for implant site preparation (ISP). In dental implant patients, what is the effectiveness of ISP by piezoelectric surgery in comparison to conventional drilling (CD) in terms of primary and secondary stability and MBL?
Background: An electronic search was conducted in PubMed, Cochrane Library, Scopus, and Google Scholar library databases following the search algorithm, “ISP or piezoelectric surgery or conventional surgery” and “piezoelectric surgery or conventional surgery.” A manual search for eligible studies was also performed in the Journal of Implant Dentistry, Quintessence International, Clinical Implant Dentistry and Related Research, and International Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Journal.
Review results: A total of 93 articles were retrieved, among which 92 were from PubMed and one was obtained by manual search. After removing duplicates 12 articles were screened and seven were finally selected for qualitative and statistical analyses. Among the above studies, piezoelectric surgery (p = 0.0964) and conventional surgery (p = 0.8525) found nonsignificant p-values with comparable results.
Conclusion: Piezoelectric surgery provides a reliable alternative to traditional drilling for implant bed preparation, yielding implant stability quotient (ISQ) and MBL values that are comparable. More high-quality research is needed to evaluate the long-term stability and bone loss values of these two approaches.
Clinical significance: Both methods are useful in ISP. However, piezoelectric surgery reduces bone destructive inflammatory response during osseointegration.
Atieh MA, Alsabeeha NHM, Tawse-Smith A, et al. Piezoelectric versus conventional implant site preparation: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2018;20(2):261–270. DOI: 10.1111/cid.12555
Eriksson A, Albrektsson T, Grane B, et al. Thermal injury to bone. A vital-microscopic description of heat effects. Int J Oral Surg 1982;11(2):115–121. DOI: 10.1016/s0300-9785(82)80020-3
Abouzgia MB, James DF. Temperature rise during drilling through bone. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1997;12(3):342–353.
Davidson SR, James DF. Drilling in bone: modeling heat generation and temperature distribution. J Biomech Eng 2003;125(3):305–314. DOI: 10.1115/1.1535190
Sener BC, Dergin G, Gursoy B, et al. Effects of irrigation temperature on heat control in vitro at different drilling depths. Clin Oral Implants Res 2009;20(3):294–298. DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-0501.2008.01643.x
Rashad A, Kaiser A, Prochnow N, et al. Heat production during different ultrasonic and conventional osteotomy preparations for dental implants. Clinical Oral Implants Res 2011;22(12):1361–1365. DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-0501.2010.02126.x
Möhlhenrich SC, Modabber A, Steiner T, et al. Heat generation and drill wear during dental implant site preparation: systematic review. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2015;53(8):679–689. DOI: 10.1016/j.bjoms.2015.05.004
Vercellotti T. Piezoelectric surgery in implantology: a case report–a new piezoelectric ridge expansion technique. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent 2000;20(4):358–365.
Vercellotti T, De Paoli S, Nevins M. The piezoelectric bony window osteotomy and sinus membrane elevation: introduction of a new technique for simplification of the sinus augmentation procedure. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent 2001;21(6):561–567.
Blus C, Szmukler-Moncler S. Atraumatic tooth extraction and immediate implant placement with piezosurgery: evaluation of 40 sites after at least 1 year of loading. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent 2010;30(4):355–363.
Di Alberti L, Donnini F, Di Alberti C, et al. A comparative study of bone densitometry during osseointegration: piezoelectric surgery versus rotary protocols. Quintessence Int 2010;41(8):639–644.
Sakuma S, Piattelli A, Baldi N, et al. Bone healing at implants placed in sites prepared either with a sonic device or drills: a split-mouth histomorphometric randomized controlled trial. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2020;35(1):187–195. DOI: 10.11607/jomi.7481
Higgins JP, Altman DG, Gøtzsche PC, et al. The Cochrane Collaboration's tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. BMJ 2011;343:d5928. DOI: 10.1136/bmj.d5928
Stacchi C, Vercellotti T, Torelli L, et al. Changes in implant stability using different site preparation techniques: twist drills versus piezosurgery. A single-blinded, randomized, controlled clinical trial. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2013;15(2):188–197. DOI: 10.1111/j.1708-8208.2011.00341.x
da Silva Neto UT, Joly JC, Gehrke SA. Clinical analysis of the stability of dental implants after preparation of the site by conventional drilling or piezosurgery. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2014;52(2):149–153. DOI: 10.1016/j.bjoms.2013.10.008
Canullo L, Peñarrocha D, Peñarrocha M, et al. Piezoelectric vs. conventional drilling in implant site preparation: pilot controlled randomized clinical trial with crossover design. Clin Oral Implants Res 2014;25(12):1336–1343. DOI: 10.1111/clr.12278
Peker Tekdal G, Bostanci N, Belibasakis GN, et al. The effect of piezoelectric surgery implant osteotomy on radiological and molecular parameters of peri-implant crestal bone loss: a randomized, controlled, split-mouth trial. Clin Oral Implants Res 2016;27(5):535–544. DOI: 10.1111/clr.12620
Stacchi C, Lombardi T, Baldi D, et al. Immediate loading of implant-supported single crowns after conventional and ultrasonic implant site preparation: a multicenter randomized controlled clinical trial. Biomed Res Int 2018;2018:6817154. DOI: 10.1155/2018/6817154
Gürkan A, Tekdal GP, Bostancı N, et al. Cytokine, chemokine, and growth factor levels in peri-implant sulcus during wound healing and osseointegration after piezosurgical versus conventional implant site preparation: randomized, controlled, split-mouth trial. J Periodontol 2019;90(6):616–626. DOI: 10.1002/JPER.18-0216
Emera AM, Aly TM, Elsheikh SA. Piezoelectric versus conventional surgical drilling for implant placement in anterior maxilla. Alex Dent J 2018;43(1):111–117.