Literature DB >> 25277806

Practitioner experience with sonic osteotomy compared to bur and ultrasonic saw: a pilot in vitro study.

A Rashad1, P Sadr-Eshkevari2, M Heiland3, R Smeets3, N Prochnow2, E Hoffmann2, P Maurer2.   

Abstract

The aim of the present study was to compare subjective experiences using bur, ultrasonic, and sonic osteotomy systems. Ten novice (N) and 10 expert (E) practitioners performed osteotomies on bovine ribs with each system. They scored ease of handling and sense of accuracy on visual analogue scales. The duration of the osteotomy procedure and the amount of noise were recorded objectively. Learning experience was evaluated in a second run. The Mann-Whitney U-test, Wilcoxon signed rank tests, and Spearman's rank correlation coefficient were used for the statistical analyses. The sonic system was significantly slower, with the worst noise impact (92.9dB; standard deviation (SD) 7.1). However, both user groups improved significantly in the second run (N 7.9, E 7.6). There were no significant differences in handling. The sense of accuracy was evaluated to be significantly best for the sonic system (N 8.4, E 8.4), compared to the ultrasonic system (N 7.1, E 7.1; both P=0.043) and bur system (N 5.5, P=0.002; E 6.0, P=0.006). The practitioners had a promising experience with the application of the ultrasonic system and particularly with the sonic system.
Copyright © 2014 International Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  bur osteotomy; comparative investigation; osteotomy impression.; sonic surgery; ultrasonic surgery

Mesh:

Year:  2014        PMID: 25277806     DOI: 10.1016/j.ijom.2014.09.004

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg        ISSN: 0901-5027            Impact factor:   2.789


  3 in total

1.  Bone Micromorphology and Material Attrition After Sonic, Ultrasonic and Conventional Osteotomies.

Authors:  Ashkan Rashad; Stefan Schwan; Alireza Nasirpour; Inge Schmitz; Henning Hanken; Reinhard E Friedrich; Martin Gosau
Journal:  In Vivo       Date:  2021 May-Jun       Impact factor: 2.155

2.  Impact of the Surgical Environment on the Incidence, Timing, and Severity of Complications Associated With Oromaxillofacial Oncologic Surgery in Dogs.

Authors:  Brittney E Rigby; Kevin Malott; Susannah J Sample; Scott J Hetzel; Jason W Soukup
Journal:  Front Vet Sci       Date:  2021-12-17

Review 3.  Piezoelectric Bone Surgery: A Review of the Literature and Potential Applications in Veterinary Oromaxillofacial Surgery.

Authors:  Philippe Hennet
Journal:  Front Vet Sci       Date:  2015-05-05
  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.