Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32803459›Full record

ArticleOral and maxillofacial surgery2021

Healing at implants installed in osteotomies prepared either with a piezoelectric device or drills: an experimental study in dogs.

Shigeo Fujiwara, Shingo Kato, Franco Bengazi, Joaquin Urbizo Velez, Margherita Tumedei, Mitsuo Kotsu, Daniele Botticelli

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Oral and maxillofacial surgery, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

15 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Review
  15. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Shigeo FujiwaraARDEC Academy, Viale Giovanni Pascoli 67, Rimini, Italy.
Shingo KatoARDEC Academy, Viale Giovanni Pascoli 67, Rimini, Italy.
Franco BengaziFaculty of Dentistry, University of Medical Science, La Habana, Cuba.
Joaquin Urbizo VelezFaculty of Dentistry, University of Medical Science, La Habana, Cuba.
Margherita TumedeiDepartment of Medical, Oral and Biotechnological Sciences, University of Chieti-Pescara, Chieti, Italy.
Mitsuo KotsuARDEC Academy, Viale Giovanni Pascoli 67, Rimini, Italy.
Daniele BotticelliARDEC Academy, Viale Giovanni Pascoli 67, Rimini, Italy. daniele.botticelli@gmail.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2804-1632

Funding

ARDEC Academy NASweden and Martina NA
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo compare osseointegration and marginal bone level at implants placed in osteotomies prepared with either conventional drills or a piezoelectric device. MATERIAL AND

methodsThree months after the extraction of all mandibular premolars and first molars, two recipient sites were selected. The osteotomies were randomly prepared with either conventional drills (drill sites) or a piezoelectric device (piezoelectric sites). Implants were installed and a submerged healing was allowed. The animals were euthanized in groups of six after 4 and 8 weeks of healing. Biopsies were obtained for histological preparation. Coronal level of osseointegration (bone level) and bone-to-implant contact percentage (BIC%) were evaluated.

resultsAfter 4 weeks of healing, the bone level was 0.6 ± 0.9 mm for the piezoelectric sites and 1.6 ± 0.7 mm for the drill sites (p = 0.173). After 8 weeks, the respective measures were 0.9 ± 0.3 mm and 1.0 ± 1.1 mm (p = 0.917). After 4 weeks of healing, a new bone apposed onto the implant surface was found at fractions of 54.9 ± 6.7% and 55.1 ± 16.6% for the piezoelectric and the drill sites, respectively (p = 0.674). The respective total bone fractions, including new and old bone, was 64.0 ± 4.8% and 63.4 ± 20.4% (p = 0.917). After 8 weeks, a new bone increased to 67.4 ± 6.7% and 62.9 ± 12.5% for the piezoelectric and the drill sites, respectively (p = 0.463). The respective total bone fractions were 70.4 ± 5.5% and 67.8 ± 12.1% (p = 0.753).

conclusionsThe use of a piezoelectric device for implant site preparation is a safe procedure that allows a proper integration since the early periods of healing similar to that observed using conventional drills.

Indexed as

Dental Implantation, EndosseousDental ImplantsAnimalsDogsMandibleOsseointegrationOsteotomyWound HealingDental ImplantsAnimal experimentsDental implantHistologyOsseointegrationOsteotomyPiezosurgery

Identifiers

PMID32803459

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.