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

BACKGROUND: The use of a piezoelectric device (PED) for implant site preparation (ISP) has been introduced to overcome the limitations of using conventional drills (CDs). With little and inconsistent information in the literature regarding their efficiency for preparing implant osteotomies, 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.

METHODS: The systematic review was prepared according to the guidelines of Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA). The literature was searched for studies that assessed the use of CDs and PEDs for ISP. The Cochrane Collaboration risk of bias tool was used to evaluate the selected studies and meta-analyses were performed using statistical software.

RESULTS: A total of 755 citations were identified. Of these, 4 studies with 178 implant osteotomies in 80 participants were included. The pooled estimates for the implant stability showed significant differences between the 2 surgical techniques in favor of PEDs at baseline, 8 and 12 weeks. A statistically significant difference in the operating time was also shown between the 2 techniques with more time required using PED. The differences in marginal bone level changes or implant failure rate were not statistically significant.

CONCLUSIONS: 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.