Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33893557›Full record

SynthesisClinical oral investigations2021

Low-speed drilling without irrigation versus conventional drilling for dental implant osteotomy preparation: a systematic review.

Juan Carlos Bernabeu-Mira, David Soto-Peñaloza, Miguel Peñarrocha-Diago, Fabio Camacho-Alonso, Rebeca Rivas-Ballester, David Peñarrocha-Oltra

Abstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Clinical oral investigations, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing papers in PubMed
4.6field-weighted citation impact, top 5% of its field
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

18 citing papers in PubMed, 32 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
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

6 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Juan Carlos Bernabeu-MiraOral Surgery Unit, Department of Stomatology, Faculty of Medicine and Dentistry, University of Valencia, Gascó Oliag, 1, 46010, Valencia, Spain. juancarlos_bernabeu@hotmail.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1268-5361
David Soto-PeñalozaOral Surgery Unit, Department of Stomatology, Faculty of Medicine and Dentistry, University of Valencia, Gascó Oliag, 1, 46010, Valencia, Spain.
Miguel Peñarrocha-DiagoOral Surgery Unit, Department of Stomatology, Faculty of Medicine and Dentistry, University of Valencia, Gascó Oliag, 1, 46010, Valencia, Spain.
Fabio Camacho-AlonsoDepartment of Oral Surgery, University of Murcia, Murcia, Spain.
Rebeca Rivas-BallesterIn Private Dental Practice, Murcia, Spain.
David Peñarrocha-OltraOral Surgery Unit, Department of Stomatology, Faculty of Medicine and Dentistry, University of Valencia, Gascó Oliag, 1, 46010, Valencia, Spain.
Universitat de València · ESIVI Murcia Clinic · ESUniversidad de Murcia · ES

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeThis paper aims to review the evidence comparing low-speed drilling without irrigation versus conventional drilling for dental implant osteotomy preparation. MATERIALS AND

methodsA systematic review was carried out based on the PRISMA statement. Four databases and gray literature were searched up to November 2020. In vitro, animal, and clinical studies were included. The variables were temperature change, drilling time, quantity of harvested bone, osteotomy precision, marginal bone loss, implant success rate, osseointegration, and the histomorphologic characteristics and cellularity of the osteotomy and of the harvested bone. Different tools for the assessment of bias were applied for each study design.

resultsA total of 626 articles were identified, of which 13 were included. Both low-speed drilling without irrigation (test group) and conventional drilling (control group) maintained temperatures below the critical temperature of 47 °C. The test group yielded a greater quantity and more beneficial cellular and histomorphologic properties of harvested bone, with a longer drilling time and greater osteotomy precision (p < 0.05). No significant results were obtained regarding drill wear, osseointegration, marginal bone loss, implant success rate, and histomorphology of the dental implant osteotomy (p > 0.05). The results, in particular on the osteotomy precision and quantity of harvested bone chips, should be interpreted with caution because outcomes are based in only one in vitro study.

conclusionsLow-speed drilling without irrigation seems to be comparable to conventional drilling in preparing dental implant osteotomies. In some situations, low-speed drilling without irrigation might offer advantages over conventional drilling. The results should be interpreted with caution due to the low percentage of clinical human studies. Accordingly, more clinical studies are needed to improve the scientific evidence on this topic. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: The low-speed drilling without irrigation is a valid technique for dental implant osteotomy preparation. Its higher quantity and quality of harvested autologous bone might be particularly beneficial in cases of dental implant placement with minor simultaneous bone regeneration.

Indexed as

Dental ImplantsAnimalsBone and BonesDental Implantation, EndosseousHot TemperatureHumansOsseointegrationOsteotomyTemperatureDental ImplantsBiological drillingConventional drillingLow-speed drillingSystematic reviewWithout irrigation

Identifiers

PMID33893557
OpenAlexW3155268409

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.