Malmö University Publications
Change search
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf
Conventional Drilling Versus Piezosurgery for Implant Site Preparation: A Meta-Analysis
Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Faculty of Dentistry, University of São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil.
Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Faculty of Dentistry, University of São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil.
Department of Stomatology, Division of Periodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, University of São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil.
Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Faculty of Dentistry, University of São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil.
Show others and affiliations
2018 (English)In: Journal of Oral Implantology, ISSN 0160-6972, E-ISSN 1548-1336, Vol. 44, no 5, p. 400-405Article, review/survey (Refereed)
Abstract [en]

The aim of this study was to evaluate if the stability of dental implants varies between dental implants placed by piezosurgery compared with those placed by conventional drilling. An electronic search in MEDLINE, SCOPUS, and the Cochrane Library was undertaken until August 2016 and was supplemented by manual searches and by unpublished studies at OpenGray. Only randomized controlled clinical trials that reported implant site preparation with piezosurgery and with conventional drilling were considered eligible for inclusion in this review. Meta-analyses were performed to evaluate the impact of piezosurgery on implant stability. Of 456 references electronically retrieved, 3 were included in the qualitative analysis and quantitative synthesis. The pooled estimates suggest that there is no significant difference between piezosurgery and conventional drilling at baseline (weighted mean differences [WMD]: 2.20; 95% confidence interval [CI]: -5.09, 9.49; P = .55). At 90 days, the pooled estimates revealed a statistically significant difference (WMD: 3.63; 95% CI: 0.58, 6.67, P = .02) favoring piezosurgery. Implant stability may be slightly improved when osteotomy is performed by a piezoelectric device. More randomized controlled clinical trials are needed to confirm these findings.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
Allen Press , 2018. Vol. 44, no 5, p. 400-405
Keywords [en]
dental implant, implant stability, piezoelectric, piezosurgery, ultrasonic surgery
National Category
Dentistry
Identifiers
URN: urn:nbn:se:mau:diva-16212DOI: 10.1563/aaid-joi-D-17-00091ISI: 000457681400014PubMedID: 29583059Scopus ID: 2-s2.0-85055597550Local ID: 27289OAI: oai:DiVA.org:mau-16212DiVA, id: diva2:1419728
Available from: 2020-03-30 Created: 2020-03-30 Last updated: 2024-06-17Bibliographically approved

Open Access in DiVA

No full text in DiVA

Other links

Publisher's full textPubMedScopus

Authority records

Wennerberg, Ann

Search in DiVA

By author/editor
Wennerberg, Ann
By organisation
Faculty of Odontology (OD)
In the same journal
Journal of Oral Implantology
Dentistry

Search outside of DiVA

GoogleGoogle Scholar

doi
pubmed
urn-nbn

Altmetric score

doi
pubmed
urn-nbn
Total: 21 hits
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf