Piezoelectric bone surgery for implant site preparation compared with conventional drilling techniques: A systematic review, meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis.

Claudio Stacchi, Francesco Bassi, Giuseppe Troiano, Antonio Rapani, Teresa Lombardi, Asbjørn Jokstad, Lars Sennerby, Gianmario Schierano
{"title":"Piezoelectric bone surgery for implant site preparation compared with conventional drilling techniques: A systematic review, meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis.","authors":"Claudio Stacchi,&nbsp;Francesco Bassi,&nbsp;Giuseppe Troiano,&nbsp;Antonio Rapani,&nbsp;Teresa Lombardi,&nbsp;Asbjørn Jokstad,&nbsp;Lars Sennerby,&nbsp;Gianmario Schierano","doi":"","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>To evaluate whether the use of piezoelectric bone surgery (PBS) for implant site preparation reduces surgical time, improves implant stability, preserves marginal bone level and improves the survival rate of oral implants compared with conventional drilling techniques.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>This meta-analysis followed the PRISMA (preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis) guidelines and was registered in the PROSPERO (international prospective register of systematic reviews) database (CRD42019142749). The PubMed, Embase, Scopus and Open Grey databases were screened for articles published from 1 January 1990 to 31 December 2018. The selection criteria included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and case-control studies (CCTs) comparing the PBS with conventional rotary instruments for implant site preparation, and reporting any of the selected clinical outcomes (surgical time, implant stability, marginal bone variations and implant failure rate) for both groups. The risk of bias assessment was performed using the Cochrane Collaboration tool for RCTs and the Newcastle-Ottawa scale (NOS) for CCTs. A meta-analysis was performed, and the power of the meta-analytic findings was assessed by trial sequential analysis (TSA).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Eight RCTs and one CCT met the inclusion criteria and were included in the review. The meta-analysis and the TSA showed moderate evidence suggesting that the PBS prolongs surgery duration and improves secondary stability 12 weeks after implant placement compared with conventional drilling techniques. Insufficient data are available in literature to assess if the PBS reduces marginal bone loss and/or improves the implant survival rate compared with conventional drilling techniques.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Adequately powered randomised clinical trials are needed to confirm the PBS positive effect on the secondary stability and to draw conclusions about the influence of PBS on marginal bone stability and implant survival.</p>","PeriodicalId":73463,"journal":{"name":"International journal of oral implantology (Berlin, Germany)","volume":"13 2","pages":"141-158"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International journal of oral implantology (Berlin, Germany)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"","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

Purpose: To evaluate whether the use of piezoelectric bone surgery (PBS) for implant site preparation reduces surgical time, improves implant stability, preserves marginal bone level and improves the survival rate of oral implants compared with conventional drilling techniques.

Materials and methods: This meta-analysis followed the PRISMA (preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis) guidelines and was registered in the PROSPERO (international prospective register of systematic reviews) database (CRD42019142749). The PubMed, Embase, Scopus and Open Grey databases were screened for articles published from 1 January 1990 to 31 December 2018. The selection criteria included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and case-control studies (CCTs) comparing the PBS with conventional rotary instruments for implant site preparation, and reporting any of the selected clinical outcomes (surgical time, implant stability, marginal bone variations and implant failure rate) for both groups. The risk of bias assessment was performed using the Cochrane Collaboration tool for RCTs and the Newcastle-Ottawa scale (NOS) for CCTs. A meta-analysis was performed, and the power of the meta-analytic findings was assessed by trial sequential analysis (TSA).

Results: Eight RCTs and one CCT met the inclusion criteria and were included in the review. The meta-analysis and the TSA showed moderate evidence suggesting that the PBS prolongs surgery duration and improves secondary stability 12 weeks after implant placement compared with conventional drilling techniques. Insufficient data are available in literature to assess if the PBS reduces marginal bone loss and/or improves the implant survival rate compared with conventional drilling techniques.

Conclusions: Adequately powered randomised clinical trials are needed to confirm the PBS positive effect on the secondary stability and to draw conclusions about the influence of PBS on marginal bone stability and implant survival.

与传统钻孔技术相比,用于种植体部位准备的压电骨手术:系统综述、荟萃分析和试验序列分析。
目的:评价与传统的钻孔技术相比,使用压电骨手术(PBS)进行种植体部位准备是否缩短了手术时间,提高了种植体的稳定性,保留了边缘骨水平,提高了口腔种植体的存活率。材料和方法:本荟萃分析遵循PRISMA(系统评价和荟萃分析首选报告项目)指南,并在PROSPERO(国际前瞻性系统评价注册)数据库中注册(CRD42019142749)。从PubMed、Embase、Scopus和Open Grey数据库中筛选1990年1月1日至2018年12月31日发表的文章。选择标准包括随机对照试验(rct)和病例对照研究(cct),比较PBS和传统旋转器械用于种植体部位准备,并报告两组的任何选定的临床结果(手术时间、种植体稳定性、边缘骨变异和种植体失败率)。使用Cochrane协作工具对随机对照试验进行偏倚风险评估,使用纽卡斯尔-渥太华量表(NOS)对有条件对照试验进行偏倚风险评估。进行了荟萃分析,并通过试验序列分析(TSA)评估了荟萃分析结果的有效性。结果:8项rct和1项CCT符合纳入标准,纳入本综述。meta分析和TSA显示适度的证据表明,与传统钻孔技术相比,PBS延长了手术时间,并改善了植入后12周的二次稳定性。文献中没有足够的数据来评估PBS与传统钻孔技术相比是否能减少边缘骨丢失和/或提高种植体存活率。结论:需要足够有力的随机临床试验来证实PBS对二级稳定性的积极作用,并得出PBS对边缘骨稳定性和种植体存活的影响的结论。
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:481959085
Book学术官方微信