Vis enkel innførsel

dc.contributor.authorStacchi, Claudio
dc.contributor.authorBassi, Francesco
dc.contributor.authorTroiano, Giuseppe
dc.contributor.authorRapani, Antonio
dc.contributor.authorLombardi, Teresa
dc.contributor.authorJokstad, Asbjørn
dc.contributor.authorSennerby, Lars
dc.contributor.authorSchierano, Gianmario
dc.date.accessioned2020-09-09T21:47:30Z
dc.date.available2020-09-09T21:47:30Z
dc.date.issued2020-05-18
dc.description.abstract<p><i>Purpose:</i> To evaluate whether the use of piezoelectric bone surgery (PBS) for implant site preparation reduces surgical time, improves implant stability, preserves marginal bone level and improves the survival rate of oral implants compared with conventional drilling techniques. <p><i>Materials and methods:</i> This meta-analysis followed the PRISMA (preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis) guidelines and was registered in the PROSPERO (international prospective register of systematic reviews) database (CRD42019142749). The PubMed, Embase, Scopus and Open Grey databases were screened for articles published from 1 January 1990 to 31 December 2018. The selection criteria included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and case-control studies (CCTs) comparing the PBS with conventional rotary instruments for implant site preparation, and reporting any of the selected clinical outcomes (surgical time, implant stability, marginal bone variations and implant failure rate) for both groups. The risk of bias assessment was performed using the Cochrane Collaboration tool for RCTs and the Newcastle-Ottawa scale (NOS) for CCTs. A meta-analysis was performed, and the power of the meta-analytic findings was assessed by trial sequential analysis (TSA). <p><i>Results:</i> Eight RCTs and one CCT met the inclusion criteria and were included in the review. The meta-analysis and the TSA showed moderate evidence suggesting that the PBS prolongs surgery duration and improves secondary stability 12 weeks after implant placement compared with conventional drilling techniques. Insufficient data are available in literature to assess if the PBS reduces marginal bone loss and/or improves the implant survival rate compared with conventional drilling techniques. <p><i>Conclusions:</i> Adequately powered randomised clinical trials are needed to confirm the PBS positive effect on the secondary stability and to draw conclusions about the influence of PBS on marginal bone stability and implant survival.en_US
dc.descriptionSource at <a href=https://ijoi.quintessenz.de/index.php?jid=ejoi&doc=abstract&abstractID=44569>https://ijoi.quintessenz.de/index.php?jid=ejoi&doc=abstract&abstractID=44569</a>.en_US
dc.identifier.citationStacchi, Bassi F, Troiano, Rapani, Lombardi, Jokstad A, Sennerby, Schierano. Piezoelectric bone surgery for implant site preparation compared with conventional drilling techniques: A systematic review, meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis. . European Journal of Oral Implantology. 2020;13(2):141-158en_US
dc.identifier.cristinIDFRIDAID 1827694
dc.identifier.issn1756-2406
dc.identifier.issn1756-2414
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/10037/19296
dc.language.isoengen_US
dc.publisherQuintessenceen_US
dc.relation.journalEuropean Journal of Oral Implantology
dc.rights.accessRightsopenAccessen_US
dc.rights.holderCopyright 2020 Quintessenz Verlags- GmbHen_US
dc.subjectVDP::Medical disciplines: 700::Clinical dentistry disciplines: 830en_US
dc.subjectVDP::Medisinske Fag: 700::Klinisk odontologiske fag: 830en_US
dc.titlePiezoelectric bone surgery for implant site preparation compared with conventional drilling techniques: A systematic review, meta-analysis and trial sequential analysisen_US
dc.type.versionpublishedVersionen_US
dc.typeJournal articleen_US
dc.typeTidsskriftartikkelen_US
dc.typePeer revieweden_US


Tilhørende fil(er)

Thumbnail

Denne innførselen finnes i følgende samling(er)

Vis enkel innførsel