LOGIN
 
Share Page:
Back

Volume 30 , Issue 6
November/December 2015

Pages 12621271


Piezoelectric Surgery vs Rotary Instruments for Lateral Maxillary Sinus Floor Elevation: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Intra- and Postoperative Complications

Momen A. Atieh, BDS, MSc, DClinDent, PhD/Nabeel H.M. Alsabeeha, DMD, MSc, MFDS RCPS (Glasg), PhD/Andrew Tawse-Smith, DDS, CertPeriodontology/Clovis M. Faggion Jr, DDS, Dr Med Dent/Warwick J. Duncan, BDS, MDS, FRACDS, PhD


PMID: 26574851
DOI: 10.11607/jomi.3895

Purpose: Lateral maxillary sinus floor elevation (LMSFE) is a predictable preprosthetic surgical procedure that is used to overcome the limitations of the atrophied alveolar ridge for the placement of oral implants. Techniques using piezoelectric devices (PEDs) and conventional rotary instruments have been described for LMSFE in the literature, with little information regarding their efficiency in terms of membrane perforation, operating time, and implant outcomes. The aim of this systematic review was to examine the intra- and postoperative events associated with the use of PEDs and conventional rotary instruments for LMSFE. Materials and Methods: This systematic review was prepared according to the guidelines of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement. The literature was searched for studies comparing the use of PEDs with conventional rotary instruments for LMSFE. The Cochrane Collaboration risk of bias tool was used to assess the studies selected, and meta-analyses were performed using statistical software. Results: A total of 124 citations were identified. Of these, four studies with 178 LMSFEs in 120 participants were included. The pooled estimates for the risk of sinus membrane perforation did not show any significant difference between the two surgical techniques (risk ratio, 0.87; 95% confidence interval, 0.401.91; P = .73). Similarly, no significant difference in implant failure was found after 1 year of functional loading. The overall meta-analysis showed a statistically significant difference in the operating time between the two techniques with more time required for PED. Conclusion: The intra- and postoperative events associated with the use of PEDs and conventional rotary instruments for LMSFE are comparable.


Full Text PDF File | Order Article

 

 
Get Adobe Reader
Adobe Acrobat Reader is required to view PDF files. This is a free program available from the Adobe web site.
Follow the download directions on the Adobe web site to get your copy of Adobe Acrobat Reader.

 

© 2017 Quintessence Publishing Co, Inc JOMI Home
Current Issue
Ahead of Print
Archive
Author Guidelines
About
Accepted Manuscripts
Submission Form
Submit
Reprints
Permission
Advertising
Quintessence Home
Terms of Use
Privacy Policy
About Us
Contact Us
Help