Piezoelectric vs. conventional drilling in implant site preparation: pilot controlled randomized clinical trial with crossover design

2013 ◽  
Vol 25 (12) ◽  
pp. 1336-1343 ◽  
Author(s):  
Luigi Canullo ◽  
David Peñarrocha ◽  
Miguel Peñarrocha ◽  
Alonso-Gonzalez Rocio ◽  
Maria Penarrocha-Diago
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trial ◽  
Randomized Clinical Trial ◽  
Site Preparation ◽  
Crossover Design ◽  
Implant Site Preparation ◽  
Conventional Drilling

In Vitro Comparison of Time and Accuracy of Implant Placement Using Trephine and Conventional Drilling Techniques Under Dynamic Navigation

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Janina Golob Deeb ◽  
Anja Frantar ◽  
George R. Deeb ◽  
Caroline K. Carrico ◽  
Ksenija Rener-Sitar
Keyword(s):  
In Vitro Study ◽  
Site Preparation ◽  
Experimental Conditions ◽  
Implant Placement ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Dynamic Navigation ◽  
Drilling Technique ◽  
Implant Site Preparation ◽  
Conventional Drilling

The aim of this randomized in vitro study was to compare the time and accuracy of implant site preparation and implant placement using a trephine drill versus a conventional drilling technique under dynamic navigation. A total of 42 implants were placed in simulation jaw models with the two drilling techniques by two operators with previous experience with dynamic navigation. The timing of each implant placement was recorded, and horizontal, vertical, and angulation discrepancies between the planned and placed implants were compared. There was no significant difference in time or accuracy between the trephine and conventional drilling techniques. Implant site preparation with a single trephine drill using dynamic navigation was as accurate under in vitro experimental conditions as a conventional drilling sequence.

scholarly journals Conventional Drilling Versus Piezosurgery for Implant Site Preparation: A Meta-Analysis

2018 ◽  
Vol 44 (5) ◽  
pp. 400-405 ◽  
Author(s):  
Daniel Isaac Sendyk ◽  
Natacha Kalline de Oliveira ◽  
Claudio Mendes Pannuti ◽  
Maria da Graça Naclério-Homem ◽  
Ann Wennerberg ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Dental Implants ◽  
Site Preparation ◽  
Implant Stability ◽  
Controlled Clinical Trials ◽  
Randomized Controlled Clinical Trials ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Implant Site Preparation ◽  
Conventional Drilling

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.

Piezoelectric surgery versus conventional drilling for implant site preparation: a meta-analysis

2018 ◽  
Vol 62 (4) ◽  
pp. 391-396 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sara Amghar-Maach ◽  
Alba Sánchez-Torres ◽  
Octavi Camps-Font ◽  
Cosme Gay-Escoda
Keyword(s):  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Site Preparation ◽  
Piezoelectric Surgery ◽  
Implant Site Preparation ◽  
Conventional Drilling

scholarly journals A Novel Osteotomy Preparation Technique to Preserve Implant Site Viability and Enhance Osteogenesis

2019 ◽  
Vol 8 (2) ◽  
pp. 170 ◽  
Author(s):  
Chih-Hao Chen ◽  
Benjamin R. Coyac ◽  
Masaki Arioka ◽  
Brian Leahy ◽  
U. Serdar Tulu ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Alveolar Bone ◽  
Rotational Velocity ◽  
Site Preparation ◽  
Osteogenic Potential ◽  
Osteotomy Site ◽  
Preparation Technique ◽  
Implant Site Preparation ◽  
Conventional Drilling ◽  
Drill Design ◽  
Practical Implications

The preservation of bone viability at an osteotomy site is a critical variable for subsequent implant osseointegration. Recent biomechanical studies evaluating the consequences of site preparation led us to rethink the design of bone-cutting drills, especially those intended for implant site preparation. We present here a novel drill design that is designed to efficiently cut bone at a very low rotational velocity, obviating the need for irrigation as a coolant. The low-speed cutting produces little heat and, consequently, osteocyte viability is maintained. The lack of irrigation, coupled with the unique design of the cutting flutes, channels into the osteotomy autologous bone chips and osseous coagulum that have inherent osteogenic potential. Collectively, these features result in robust, new bone formation at rates significantly faster than those observed with conventional drilling protocols. These preclinical data have practical implications for the clinical preparation of osteotomies and alveolar bone reconstructive surgeries.

Temperatures generated during implant site preparation with conventional drilling versus single-drill method: an ex-vivo human mandible study

2020 ◽  
Vol 68 (6) ◽  
Author(s):  
Christian Bacci ◽  
Nicola Lucchiari ◽  
Anna C. Frigo ◽  
Carla Stecco ◽  
Gastone Zanette ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Ex Vivo ◽  
Site Preparation ◽  
Implant Site Preparation ◽  
Conventional Drilling
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document