Osseodensification versus standard osteotomy: systematic review and meta-analysis of dental implant torque and stability.

IF 2.7
G Marzorati, F Khayyat, V Bermúdez, I Cortell, B Merck
{"title":"Osseodensification versus standard osteotomy: systematic review and meta-analysis of dental implant torque and stability.","authors":"G Marzorati, F Khayyat, V Bermúdez, I Cortell, B Merck","doi":"10.1016/j.ijom.2026.02.008","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The aim of this study was to analyse and compare the biomechanical performance of a novel drilling technique known as osseodensification, which focuses on bone preservation and compaction rather than removal, against the conventional osteotomy technique in implant placement. Online databases were searched to identify relevant articles published in English during the last 10 years (up until September 11, 2025), reporting in vivo clinical trials involving a healthy adult population undergoing single or multiple implant placement, and comparing osseodensification and standard osteotomy drills, in a partially or fully edentulous segment of alveolar bone. Biomechanical measures analysed were the insertion torque and implant stability quotient (ISQ). Risk of bias and study quality were evaluated using the RoB 2 tool, Newcastle-Ottawa Scale, and GRADE system. The results were synthesized. Overall, a total of 555 patients (59.2% female, in studies reporting the sex distribution), received a total of 685 implants (343 using osseodensification). The overall mean insertion torque in the osseodensification group was 45.75 ± 6.55 N·cm, while in the standard osteotomy group it was 38.00 ± 7.01 N·cm (P < 0.001). The estimated average mean difference in ISQ (random-effects model) was 3.24 (95% confidence interval 0.72-5.95; P = 0.024). The data showed that sites prepared with osseodensification resulted in higher implant torque and primary stability of the implant (ISQ) immediately postoperative. However, longitudinal data were insufficient to allow a meaningful statistical analysis of ISQ trends over time.</p>","PeriodicalId":94053,"journal":{"name":"International journal of oral and maxillofacial surgery","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.7000,"publicationDate":"2026-03-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International journal of oral and maxillofacial surgery","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijom.2026.02.008","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The aim of this study was to analyse and compare the biomechanical performance of a novel drilling technique known as osseodensification, which focuses on bone preservation and compaction rather than removal, against the conventional osteotomy technique in implant placement. Online databases were searched to identify relevant articles published in English during the last 10 years (up until September 11, 2025), reporting in vivo clinical trials involving a healthy adult population undergoing single or multiple implant placement, and comparing osseodensification and standard osteotomy drills, in a partially or fully edentulous segment of alveolar bone. Biomechanical measures analysed were the insertion torque and implant stability quotient (ISQ). Risk of bias and study quality were evaluated using the RoB 2 tool, Newcastle-Ottawa Scale, and GRADE system. The results were synthesized. Overall, a total of 555 patients (59.2% female, in studies reporting the sex distribution), received a total of 685 implants (343 using osseodensification). The overall mean insertion torque in the osseodensification group was 45.75 ± 6.55 N·cm, while in the standard osteotomy group it was 38.00 ± 7.01 N·cm (P < 0.001). The estimated average mean difference in ISQ (random-effects model) was 3.24 (95% confidence interval 0.72-5.95; P = 0.024). The data showed that sites prepared with osseodensification resulted in higher implant torque and primary stability of the implant (ISQ) immediately postoperative. However, longitudinal data were insufficient to allow a meaningful statistical analysis of ISQ trends over time.

骨致密化与标准截骨:种植体扭矩和稳定性的系统回顾和荟萃分析。
本研究的目的是分析和比较一种被称为骨密度的新型钻孔技术的生物力学性能,该技术侧重于骨保存和压实而不是去除,与传统的骨切开术相比。我们检索了在线数据库,以确定过去10年(截至2025年9月11日)发表的相关英文文章,这些文章报道了健康成人进行单次或多次种植体植入的体内临床试验,并比较了在部分无牙或完全无牙的牙槽骨段进行骨密度化和标准截骨训练的结果。生物力学指标包括植入扭矩和种植体稳定商(ISQ)。使用RoB 2工具、Newcastle-Ottawa量表和GRADE系统评估偏倚风险和研究质量。对结果进行了综合。总体而言,共有555名患者(59.2%为女性,在报告性别分布的研究中)接受了685个种植体(343个使用骨密度)。骨密度组的总平均插入扭矩为45.75±6.55 N·cm,而标准截骨组为38.00±7.01 N·cm (P < 0.001)。ISQ(随机效应模型)的估计平均差值为3.24(95%置信区间0.72-5.95;P = 0.024)。数据显示,骨密度制备的部位术后立即获得更高的种植体扭矩和种植体的初级稳定性(ISQ)。然而,纵向数据不足以对ISQ随时间的趋势进行有意义的统计分析。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书