COMPARISON OF TWO DIFFERENT IMPLANT SITE PREPARATION TECHNIQUES: PIEZOSURGERY VS STANDARD DRILLING

Relevance of the problem. Over the years, dental implant placement has proven to be a routine and reliable procedure. Osteotomy site preparation has a significant impact on implantation success rate. Surgery using piezosurgery is used as an alternative method for osteotomy. Piezosurgery concept has proven to reduce mechanical and thermal tissue trauma. Aim. Compare clinical differences between piezosurgery (PS) and standard drilling (SD) in dental implantation. Materials and methods: A systematic review was based on the PRISMA guidelines. Search was carried out in electronic databases. Researched studies were observational, published less than 10 years ago, in English. Studies that involved immediate implantation or bone augmentation were excluded, as well as patients with metabolic bone diseases or using bisphosphonate therapy. Results. Regarding crestal bone loss, 3 out of 4 articles stated that there were no statistically significant differences between standard drilling and piezosurgery group. One study, however, disclosed that piezosurgery showed better preservation of crestal bone after 3 years. 5 studies measured primary stability and did not find any significant differences. Secondary stability, however, was significantly higher in the piezosurgery group at 2nd and 3rd months. 5 studies that measured the duration of surgeries reported longer osteotomy time for the piezosurgery group. Pain level on VAS scale, oppositely, was lower in piezosurgery group. Conclusion. In conclusion, piezosurgery can be considered as an alternative to standard drilling. In terms of success rate, crestal bone loss and primary stability, results seem to be very similar in both groups. Piezosurgery, although, seems to be advantageous achieving secondary stability and maintaining lower pain levels during the healing process.