Ultrasonic Implant Site Preparation Using Piezosurgery: A Multicenter Case Series Study Analyzing 3,579 Implants with a 1- to 3-Year Follow-Up

Vercellotti, Tomaso; Stacchi, Claudio; Russo, Cecilia; Rebaudi, Alberto; Vincenzi, Giampaolo; Pratella, U.; Baldi, Domenico; Mozzati, Marco; Monagheddu, Chiara; Sentineri, Rosario; Cuneo, Tommaso; Alberti, L Di; Carossa, Stefano

doi:10.11607/prd.1860

Cited by 51 publications

(32 citation statements)

References 19 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Of which, 748 were excluded after reviewing the titles and abstracts. The full‐text of the remaining 7 articles were scrutinized for eligibility. Only 4 articles fulfilled the inclusion criteria and were included in the review (Table ).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…17,18 The results of studies comparing the healing of sites prepared with CDs to those prepared with PEDs are inconsistent. [18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25][26] Thus, the objective of this systematic review was to compare the use of CDs to PEDs for ISP with regard to implant stability values, marginal bone level changes, operating time, and dental implant failure rate.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Piezoelectric versus conventional implant site preparation: A systematic review and meta‐analysis

Atieh

Alsabeeha

Tawse‐Smith

et al. 2017

Clin Implant Dent Rel Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

With the limitations of this review in mind, PEDs appear to be a viable alternative to traditional drilling techniques for ISP. With the exception of prolonged operating time associated with the use of PEDs, both techniques were comparable in terms of the marginal bone level changes and the risk of implant failure. The favorable influence of the implant stability pattern related to the use of PEDs on the predictability of immediate and early loading protocols need to be confirmed in future studies.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Piezoelectric versus conventional implant site preparation: A systematic review and meta‐analysis

Atieh

Alsabeeha

Tawse‐Smith

et al. 2017

Clin Implant Dent Rel Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…; Vercellotti et al. ). Furthermore, a clinical densitometric study revealed higher bone density around implants inserted following PS osteotomy than observed around implants inserted following rotatory protocols (Alberti et al.…”

mentioning

confidence: 97%

The effect of piezoelectric surgery implant osteotomy on radiological and molecular parameters of peri‐implant crestal bone loss: a randomized, controlled, split‐mouth trial

Tekdal

Bostancı

Belibasakis

et al. 2015

Clinical Oral Implants Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

AIM: To evaluate the effect of piezoelectric surgery (PS) implant osteotomy on biochemical and radiological parameters of crestal bone (CB) loss. MATERIAL AND METHODS: In this randomized, controlled, clinical study, 38 osteotomies were prepared with PS and drilling in the posterior maxilla in a split-mouth design. Implants were placed and left for non-submerged healing. Osteotomy time, insertion torque, pain perception, probing depth, and modified gingival and plaque indices were recorded. Peri-implant sulcular fluid (PISF) was collected from four sites of each implant at 2, 4, 8, 12, and 24 weeks. PISF samples were analyzed by ELISA for receptor activator of nuclear factor kappa-B-ligand (RANKL) and osteoprotegerin. CB loss was assessed on periapical radiographs at the 12th and on cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) at the 24th weeks. The influence of time and osteotomy method on biochemical and radiological parameters of CB loss employed statistical method of Brunner-Langer. RESULTS: Osteotomy time for PS group was significantly longer than the drill group (P < 0.05). Pain perception that was lower in the PS than in the drill group depended on osteotomy method (P < 0.05). PS group had lower RANKL total amount than the drill group (P < 0.05). Mean CB loss on periapical radiographs at the 12th week for PS and drill groups were 0.11 and 0.18 mm, respectively (P > 0.05). At the 24th week, PS and drill groups showed 0.11 and 0.12 mm CB losses on CBCT, respectively (P > 0.05). However, CB loss values did not depend on osteotomy modality (P > 0.05). CONCLUSION: PS may modify and reduce bone-destructive inflammatory response during implant osseointegration. Therefore, on the molecular level, it might be a less traumatic osteotomy modality than drilling although this was not reflected by CB loss values in the present study. Results: Osteotomy time for PS group was significantly longer than the drill group (p<0.05). Pain perception that was lower in the PS than the drill group depended to osteotomy method (p<0.05). PS group had lower RANKL total amount than the drill group (p<0.05). Mean CB loss on periapical radiographs at 12 th week for PS and drill groups were 0.11 mm and 0.18 mm, respectively (p>0.05). At 24 th week PS and drill groups showed 0.11 mm and 0.12 mm CB loss on CBCT, respectively (p>0.05). However, CB loss values did not depend on osteotomy modality (p>0.05). Conclusion:PS may modify and reduce bone-destructive inflammatory response during implant osseointegration. Therefore, it might be a less traumatic osteotomy modality than drilling although this was not reflected by CB loss values in the present study.

show abstract

“…; Vercellotti et al. ). Additionally, Piezoelectric tools used in bone surgery, compared with traditional rotatory instruments, have demonstrated better and faster bone healing responses even from histologic and biomolecular viewpoints (Vercellotti et al.…”

mentioning

confidence: 97%

“…Moreover, piezosurgery devices may reduce trauma and complications in extraction of impacted third molars (Rullo et al 2013). Specific piezoelectric inserts have been utilized successfully for implant site preparation both in dogs (Bengazi et al 2014) and in humans (Canullo et al 2014;Vercellotti et al 2014). Additionally, Piezoelectric tools used in bone surgery, compared with traditional rotatory instruments, have demonstrated better and faster bone healing responses even from histologic and biomolecular viewpoints (Vercellotti et al 2005;Preti et al 2007).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Piezosurgical treatment of crestal bone: quantitative comparison of post‐extractive socket outcomes with those of traditional treatment

Spinato

Rebaudi

Bernardello³

et al. 2015

Clinical Oral Implants Res

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Ultrasonic Implant Site Preparation Using Piezosurgery: A Multicenter Case Series Study Analyzing 3,579 Implants with a 1- to 3-Year Follow-Up

Cited by 51 publications

References 19 publications

Piezoelectric versus conventional implant site preparation: A systematic review and meta‐analysis

Piezoelectric versus conventional implant site preparation: A systematic review and meta‐analysis

The effect of piezoelectric surgery implant osteotomy on radiological and molecular parameters of peri‐implant crestal bone loss: a randomized, controlled, split‐mouth trial

Piezosurgical treatment of crestal bone: quantitative comparison of post‐extractive socket outcomes with those of traditional treatment

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About