Piezoelectric Alveolar Ridge-Splitting Technique with Simultaneous Implant Placement: A Cohort Study with 2-Year Radiographic Results

Bassetti, Renzo; Bassetti, Mario; Mericske‐Stern, Regina; Enkling, Norbert

doi:10.11607/jomi.3174

Cited by 40 publications

(78 citation statements)

References 31 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Currently, the rotary instruments have been replaced by ultrasonic instruments for osteotomy and/or odontosection in various fields of maxillofacial surgery such as orthognathic surgery [9], implantology [10,11], sinus lifting [12], bone grafts [13] and third molar surgery [14]. This type of surgery is called piezoelectric and the surgery is performed through micro vibrations of the active tip of the piezoelectric device, which promotes osteotomy or odontosection.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Rotary Instrument or Piezoelectric for the Removal of Third Molars: a Meta-Analysis

Magesty

Galvão

Martins

et al. 2016

J. Maxillofac. Oral Surg.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Aim The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to compare, in the lower third molar surgery, the osteotomy techniques with rotary instruments and piezoelectric motors. Methods An electronic search was conducted using the following databases: Pubmed, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Oral Health Group Trials Register. Inclusion criteria were: studies in humans, randomized or nonrandomized, comparing the extraction of third molars that required osteotomy and/or odontosection with rotary instrument and osteotomy and/or odontosection with piezoelectric motor assistance. The analysis and inclusion of articles was performed by two reviewers independently. An evaluation of the quality of articles and data extraction was carried out. Results From a total of nine hundred seventy four (974) trials, eleven articles were included in the qualitative analysis, and seven were included in the quantitative analysis. Rotary instruments were faster than the piezoelectric surgery (95 % CI 0.34 to 1.16). The piezoelectric surgery showed better results when compared with roatry instruments when trismus was assessed in 2 (95 % CI 0.65 to 1.69), 3 (95 % CI 0.63 to 1.67) and 5 (95 % CI 0.03 to 2.26) days after surgery. Seven days after surgery, there were no differences between the techniques (95 % CI (-0.022) to (-1.49)). Conclusion The piezoelectric surgery was effective in reducing pain, swelling and trismus in third molar surgery, but the same requires greater surgical time than the rotary instruments.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Rotary Instrument or Piezoelectric for the Removal of Third Molars: a Meta-Analysis

Magesty

Galvão

Martins

et al. 2016

J. Maxillofac. Oral Surg.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Eleven studies applied the technique in the upper arch anteriorly 1,8,[17][18][19][20][22][23][24][25] , posterior 1,8,[18][19][20][22][23][24][25][26] , while 8 papers applied the technique in the lower arch namely anterior 1,8,18,19,22,24,25 and posterior 1,8,18,19,21,22,24,25 . Initial alveolar ridge width was different between the studies with a range between 1.5-5 mm, while in one study 22 it was not mentioned.…”

Section: Results:-mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Full thickness flap was applied in 9 studies 1,8,17,[20][21][22][24][25][26] , while partial thickness flap was applied in 5 studies 1,[17][18][19]23 . Regarding the methods used for ridge splitting, chisels and osteotomes have been used in 6 studies 1,8,17,19,20,23 , burs and discs have been used in 4 studies 22,[24][25][26] , electrical mallet has been used in 1 study 19 while piezo-electric device has been used in 3 studies 18,21,24 .…”

Section: Results:-mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Regarding the methods used for ridge splitting, chisels and osteotomes have been used in 6 studies 1,8,17,19,20,23 , burs and discs have been used in 4 studies 22,[24][25][26] , electrical mallet has been used in 1 study 19 while piezo-electric device has been used in 3 studies 18,21,24 . Regarding the methods used for ridge expansion, chisels and osteotomes have been used in 8 studies 17, 19-23, 25, 26, wedges have been used in 1 study 18 while extension crest device has been used in another study 1 .…”

Section: Results:-mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Effect of Guided Bone Regeneration on Ridge Splitting With or Without Expansion in Adults: A Systematic Review.

Hanafy¹,

Kholy²,

Mostafa³

2017

IJAR

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Several modifications have been applied to the ridge splitting with or without expansion technique to allow for implant placement in the atrophic ridges. Some studies utilized guided bone regeneration and others not. Aim: This systematic review will try to present the different studies discussing the effects of conjunction of bone grafting materials and/or membranes or not with the ridge splitting with or without expansion for patients having insufficient bucco-palatal ridge width. Methods: A thorough PUBMED (Medline) and COCHRANE databases search in addition to hand-search of journals of relevance was performed on related terms in the period from 1992 to 2016 and resulted in 3247 titles of which 21 abstracts were selected and collected as full articles for further evaluation while the rest were excluded by title or abstract. According to the inclusion criteria 14 studies were included and discussed in this article. Results: Of the 14 studies included in the present study only one study (cohort-retrospective) compared ridge splitting with/without expansion technique alone and with guided bone regeneration. Twelve studies applied guided bone regeneration while three studies did not. Conclusion:The studies included in the present review showed high success and survival rates of implants placed in narrow ridges where ridge splitting and/or expansion technique were used with/without the application of guided bone regeneration. While the conjunction of guided bone regeneration with the ridge splitting and/or expansion technique showed more complications than using the technique alone. Studies included in the present study were of high or moderate risk of bias with only one randomized controlled clinical trial. So, the results of the present study should be reviewed cautiously.

show abstract

“…Most of the reported literature of this procedure are mainly case reports and case series, neither of which is strong with respect to the hierarchy of evidence. 25,26 The objective of this systematic review is to fill a gap in knowledge and comprehension of the effects of simultaneous implant placement with different ridge split techniques on marginal bone loss and survival rate of implants. It also, aimed to eliminate errors that were detected in previous studies.…”

Section: -7mentioning

confidence: 99%

The Effect of Different Flap Techniques on Bone Changes in Split Crest Ridges With Simultaneous Implant Placement.

Fettoh¹,

Charkawi²,

Dohiem³

2016

IJAR

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Statement of problem:-The maxillary ridge split treatment options, which include different flap techniques with simultaneous implant placement, may help eliminate the current undetermined best choice of treatment plan. Purpose: -The aim of this systematic review was to evaluate outcome of simultaneous implants placement in alveolar ridge split carried out by different flap approaches on marginal bone changes and survival rate. Materials and Methods: -English publications on the subject were searched to select articles up to December 2015. Articles in peerreviewed journals were searched in an electronic database (MEDLINE, Pub-Med and Cochran). Also, a manual search studies on humans was carried out. Two independent reviewers screened 855 papers. Result: -843 articles were excluded on the basis of the title and abstract. Full-text articles were obtained for the 12 selected publications. The 12 full texts were assessed by the two reviewers and 3studies were found fitting for inclusion. Conclusion: -The limited data indicates that the flap design does not affect bone changes and survival rate in ridge split procedure with simultaneous implant placement. …………………………………………………………………………………………………….... Clinical implications:-No current consensus has been published on which the more effective flap option in ridge split with simultaneous implant placement. Ridge Split Techniques show no significant difference in bone loss and high survival rates and therefore seems to be a predictable treatment modality for implant placement in narrow alveolar ridges.

show abstract

Piezoelectric Alveolar Ridge-Splitting Technique with Simultaneous Implant Placement: A Cohort Study with 2-Year Radiographic Results

Cited by 40 publications

References 31 publications

Rotary Instrument or Piezoelectric for the Removal of Third Molars: a Meta-Analysis

Rotary Instrument or Piezoelectric for the Removal of Third Molars: a Meta-Analysis

Effect of Guided Bone Regeneration on Ridge Splitting With or Without Expansion in Adults: A Systematic Review.

The Effect of Different Flap Techniques on Bone Changes in Split Crest Ridges With Simultaneous Implant Placement.

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About