@misc{10481/67936,
year = {2021},
month = {3},
url = {http://hdl.handle.net/10481/67936},
abstract = {Background: The main objective of this systematic review was to compare primary and secondary implant stability
between placement with piezoelectric osteotomy and conventional drilling, comparing marginal bone losses
as a secondary objective.
Material and Methods: An electronic search was conducted using PubMed (MEDLINE), Scopus, and Cochrane
Library (Wiley) databases, besides a manual search.
Results: A total of 153 articles were retrieved, 39 from Pubmed, 44 from Scopus, and 70 from the Cochrane
Library. After removing duplicates, 112 articles (1 from the manual search) were screened, and 9 were finally
selected for qualitative and statistical analyses.
Conclusions: Piezoelectric surgery is a predictable alternative to conventional drilling for dental implant placement.
Medium/long-term survival rates and marginal bone losses are similar between piezoelectric osteotomy and
conventional drilling, and there is no difference in ISQ values for primary stability. However, implants placed with
ultrasound showed a lower decrease in implant stability quotient (ISQ) during the osseointegration period and a
higher ISQ value for secondary stability. This study contributes further information on peri-implant bone tissue
at 3 and 6 months after implant placement with piezoelectric osteotomy or conventional drilling and provides an
updated meta-analysis of comparative studies.},
publisher = {Medicina Oral SL},
keywords = {Piezosurgery},
keywords = {Piezoelectric surgery},
keywords = {Conventional drill},
keywords = {Implant site preparation},
keywords = {Dental implants},
keywords = {Implant stability},
keywords = {Marginal bone loss},
title = {Stability and marginal bone loss in implants placed using piezoelectric osteotomy versus conventional drilling: systematic review and meta-analysis},
doi = {10.4317/medoral.24146},
author = {Godoy Reina, Isabel and Moreu Burgos, Gerardo and González-Jaranay Ruiz, Maximino M.},
}