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, 0.40-1.91; 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.
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, 0.40-1.91; 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.
Authors: Carlo Rengo; Antonino Fiorino; Alessandro Cucchi; Antonio Nappo; Emanuele Randellini; Paolo Calamai; Marco Ferrari Journal: Clin Oral Investig Date: 2021-02-23 Impact factor: 3.573