Author:
Bayram Ferit,Demirci Ahmet
Abstract
Abstract
Background
Although piezosurgery is now commonly used for various applications in maxillofacial surgery, its advantages over conventional rotary instruments in terms of postoperative edema, ecchymosis, postoperative morbidity, and prolonged osteotomy time have been questioned.
Materials and methods
This study aimed to compare the efficiency, postoperative morbidity, and complication rates of piezosurgery and conventional methods in harvesting autogenous ramus grafts. In this randomized controlled trial, 21 patients (32 sides) underwent autogenous graft harvesting from the ramus area, with 16 sites treated using piezosurgery and 16 using the conventional method. The primary outcomes measured were osteotomy time, total operation time, and postoperative morbidity. Complication rates were also evaluated.
Results
The final analysis encompassed 19 patients, accounting for a total of 30 donor sites, following the exclusion of two patients who were unable to attend the scheduled follow-up visits. A total of 19 patients (30 donor sites) were included in the final analysis. No statistically significant difference was found in the mean osteotomy time between the piezosurgery group (mean: 10.35, SD: 2.74 min) and the conventional group (mean: 8.74, SD: 2.74 min) (95% CI: -3.67 to 0.442, p = 0.119). The total operation time, postoperative pain, and swelling were not significantly different between the two groups (p > 0.05). The complication rates, including wound dehiscence and inferior alveolar nerve exposure, were similar in both groups.
Conclusions
Piezosurgery can be safely used for harvesting autogenous ramus grafts and does not increase osteotomy or total operation time compared to the conventional method. The postoperative morbidity and complication rates were also similar, indicating that both techniques can be effectively employed in clinical practice.
Clinical Trial Registration
The protocol was registered on clinicaltrials.gov (ID: NCT05548049, First registration date: 21/09/2022).
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Reference32 articles.
1. Esposito M, Grusovin MG, Felice P, Karatzopoulos G, Worthington HV, Coulthard P. Interventions for replacing missing teeth: horizontal and vertical bone augmentation techniques for dental implant treatment. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2009;2009(4):CD003607.
2. Mordenfeld A, Hallman M, Johansson CB, Albrektsson T. Histological and histomorphometrical analyses of biopsies harvested 11 years after maxillary sinus floor augmentation with deproteinized bovine and autogenous bone. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2010:no–no.
3. Chiapasco M, Zaniboni M, Rimondini L. Dental implants placed in grafted maxillary sinuses: a retrospective analysis of clinical outcome according to the initial clinical situation and a proposal of defect classification. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2008;19(4):416–28.
4. Chiapasco M, Casentini P, Zaniboni M. Bone augmentation procedures in implant dentistry. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2009;24 Suppl:237 – 59.
5. Nkenke E, Stelzle F. Clinical outcomes of sinus floor augmentation for implant placement using autogenous bone or bone substitutes: a systematic review. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2009;20:124–33.
Cited by
1 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献