The use of a piezoelectric device (PED) for implant site preparation (ISP) has been introduced to overcome the limitations of using conventional drills (CDs). With little and inconsistent information in the literature regarding their efficiency for preparing implant osteotomies, the objective of this systematic review was to compare the use of CDs to PEDs for ISP with regard to implant stability values, marginal bone level changes, operating time, and dental implant failure rate.
The systematic review was prepared according to the guidelines of Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA). The literature was searched for studies that assessed the use of CDs and PEDs for ISP. The Cochrane Collaboration risk of bias tool was used to evaluate the selected studies and meta-analyses were performed using statistical software.
A total of 755 citations were identified. Of these, 4 studies with 178 implant osteotomies in 80 participants were included. The pooled estimates for the implant stability showed significant differences between the 2 surgical techniques in favor of PEDs at baseline, 8 and 12 weeks. A statistically significant difference in the operating time was also shown between the 2 techniques with more time required using PED. The differences in marginal bone level changes or implant failure rate were not statistically significant.
With the limitations of this review in mind, PEDs appear to be a viable alternative to traditional drilling techniques for ISP. With the exception of prolonged operating time associated with the use of PEDs, both techniques were comparable in terms of the marginal bone level changes and the risk of implant failure. The favorable influence of the implant stability pattern related to the use of PEDs on the predictability of immediate and early loading protocols need to be confirmed in future studies.
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 12 December 2018.
All research outputs
#28,611,663
of 34,372,222 outputs
Outputs from Clinical Implant Dentistry & Related Research
#334
of 469 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#279,169
of 347,256 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinical Implant Dentistry & Related Research
#6
of 11 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 34,372,222 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 9th percentile – i.e., 9% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 469 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.8. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 347,256 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 11 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 18th percentile – i.e., 18% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
