Department of Oral Sciences, Faculty of Dentistry, Oral Implantology Research Group, Sir John Walsh Research Institute, University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand.
Prosthetic Section, Ras Al-Khaimah Dental Center, Ministry of Health, Ras Al-Khaimah, United Arab Emirates.
Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2018 Apr;20(2):261-270. doi: 10.1111/cid.12555. Epub 2017 Nov 16.
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.
为了克服使用传统钻头（CDs）的局限性，引入了压电设备（PED）进行种植体位点预备（ISP）。由于文献中关于其预备种植体截骨术的效率的信息很少且不一致，因此本系统评价的目的是比较 CDs 和 PED 在 ISP 方面的使用情况，比较指标包括种植体稳定性值、边缘骨水平变化、手术时间和种植牙失败率。
系统评价根据系统评价和荟萃分析的首选报告项目（PRISMA）指南进行准备。检索了评估 CDs 和 PED 用于 ISP 的研究。使用 Cochrane 协作风险偏倚工具评估所选研究，并使用统计软件进行荟萃分析。
共确定了 755 条引文。其中，有 4 项研究共纳入了 80 名参与者的 178 个种植体截骨术。汇总估计表明，在基线、8 周和 12 周时，两种手术技术之间的种植体稳定性存在显著差异，PED 更有优势。两种技术之间的手术时间也存在显著差异，使用 PED 所需的时间更多。边缘骨水平变化或种植牙失败率的差异无统计学意义。
考虑到本综述的局限性，PED 似乎是传统钻孔技术的一种可行替代方案。除了与使用 PED 相关的手术时间延长外，两种技术在边缘骨水平变化和种植牙失败风险方面具有可比性。在未来的研究中，需要证实使用 PED 与种植体稳定性模式相关的有利影响对即时和早期加载方案的可预测性的影响。
