PURPOSE: The aim of this randomized prospective split-mouth clinical trial was to evaluate the outcome of bone block harvesting from the retromolar region using the MicroSaw and Piezosurgery. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Fifty-three patients for extensive bilateral bone grafting procedures with or without concomitant implant placement in the maxilla and/or mandible were scheduled. In each patient, bone blocks were harvested in the retromolar area within the external oblique ridge of the mandible. Using a randomized protocol, bone blocks were harvested with the MicroSaw and Piezosurgery either from the right or the left side. Clinical outcome parameters were the comparison of osteotomy time; volume of block graft; and clinical determination of intraoperative complications such as hemorrhage, nerve injury, pain, swelling, and healing of the donor site. RESULTS: The mean osteotomy time for harvesting including luxating a bone block was 5.63 (± 1.37) minutes using the MicroSaw and 16.47 (± 2.74) minutes using Piezosurgery (P < .05). A mean graft volume of 1.62 (± 0.27) cm3 was measured with the MicroSaw and 1.26 (± 0.27) cm3 with the piezoelectric surgical device (P < .05). No heavy bleeding at the donor site occurred in any of the cases. Complications due to injury of adjacent teeth or nerve lesion of the mandibular nerve were not observed in any cases. According to a scale, there was little postoperative pain with both instruments, and it decreased within 14 days postoperatively (P > .05). Swelling did not appear significantly different either (P > .05), and none of the donor sites showed primary healing complications. CONCLUSION: The data described in this randomized prospective split-mouth clinical trial indicate that the MicroSaw and Piezosurgery allowed efficient and safe bone block harvesting from the external oblique ridge. Clinically, concerning harvesting time and volume of the grafts, the MicroSaw performed significantly better, whereas pain, swelling, and healing did not appear to be considerably different. Given the improved visibility, precise cut geometries, and the margin of safety afforded by the MicroSaw and Piezosurgery, they are both instruments of choice when harvesting bone from the retromolar area.
RCT Entities:
PURPOSE: The aim of this randomized prospective split-mouth clinical trial was to evaluate the outcome of bone block harvesting from the retromolar region using the MicroSaw and Piezosurgery. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Fifty-three patients for extensive bilateral bone grafting procedures with or without concomitant implant placement in the maxilla and/or mandible were scheduled. In each patient, bone blocks were harvested in the retromolar area within the external oblique ridge of the mandible. Using a randomized protocol, bone blocks were harvested with the MicroSaw and Piezosurgery either from the right or the left side. Clinical outcome parameters were the comparison of osteotomy time; volume of block graft; and clinical determination of intraoperative complications such as hemorrhage, nerve injury, pain, swelling, and healing of the donor site. RESULTS: The mean osteotomy time for harvesting including luxating a bone block was 5.63 (± 1.37) minutes using the MicroSaw and 16.47 (± 2.74) minutes using Piezosurgery (P < .05). A mean graft volume of 1.62 (± 0.27) cm3 was measured with the MicroSaw and 1.26 (± 0.27) cm3 with the piezoelectric surgical device (P < .05). No heavy bleeding at the donor site occurred in any of the cases. Complications due to injury of adjacent teeth or nerve lesion of the mandibular nerve were not observed in any cases. According to a scale, there was little postoperative pain with both instruments, and it decreased within 14 days postoperatively (P > .05). Swelling did not appear significantly different either (P > .05), and none of the donor sites showed primary healing complications. CONCLUSION: The data described in this randomized prospective split-mouth clinical trial indicate that the MicroSaw and Piezosurgery allowed efficient and safe bone block harvesting from the external oblique ridge. Clinically, concerning harvesting time and volume of the grafts, the MicroSaw performed significantly better, whereas pain, swelling, and healing did not appear to be considerably different. Given the improved visibility, precise cut geometries, and the margin of safety afforded by the MicroSaw and Piezosurgery, they are both instruments of choice when harvesting bone from the retromolar area.