Trial reportInternational journal of implant dentistry2024
Dental implant site preparation with conventional rotary drill or piezosurgery: five-year after placement results from a within person randomised controlled trial.
Trial report in International journal of implant dentistry, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
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.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Retrospective Observational Study on Implant Site Preparation Using Magnetodynamic Surgery vs. Piezoelectric and Traditional Surgery.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo evaluate whether there are clinical benefits by preparing dental implant sites using piezosurgery instead of conventional rotary drills in healed bone crests and if initial crestal soft tissue thickness could have an impact on marginal bone loss.
methodsTwenty-five partially edentulous patients requiring two single implants in molar/premolar areas had each site randomly allocated to either piezosurgery or to conventional rotary drill preparation according to a split-mouth design. Definitive screw-retained metal-ceramic crowns were delivered after 6 months. All patients were followed to 5 years after placement. Outcome measures were: implant/crown failures, complications, peri-implant marginal bone level changes, resonance frequency analysis (RFA), and time required to complete site preparation, recorded, when possible, by blinded assessors.
resultsNo patients dropped-out and no implant failed. Five years after placement, there were no statistically significant differences for complications (only one complication in the piezo group: difference = 0.04; P = 1), for peri-implant bone loss (difference = -0.11 mm; 95% CI -0.24 to 0.01; P = 0.083), and for RFA changes (6 months) (difference = -0.35; 95% CI -1.95 to 1.25; P = 0.672 between groups). Significantly more time was needed to prepare implant sites with piezosurgery (difference = 236.8 s; 95% CI -286.12 to -187.48; P < 0.0001). Initial soft tissue thickness had no effect on peri-implant bone loss (estimate = 0.05; 95% CI -0.03; 0.12; P = 0.239).
conclusionsNo clinically appreciable differences were noticed when placing implants using piezosurgery or conventional instrumentation with rotary drill, however, the preparation with rotary drills was on average 4 min faster. No effect of initial crestal soft tissue thickness was observed on peri-implant bone loss.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.