PURPOSE: This study aimed to assess the stability and survival rate of dental implants inserted with different site preparation techniques-piezoelectric inserts versus traditional rotary instruments. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Correlative research was located by searching articles in PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library. This was accomplished independently by two different reviewers and supplemented by a manual search. Only prospective studies evaluating piezoelectric vs conventional implant site preparation in dental implantation were included in this review. A meta-analysis was performed on the stability and survival rate of implants. RESULTS: One thousand fifty-five articles were identified following the search strategy, of which five studies were finally included in this meta-analysis. With regard to the survival rate of implants, there was no statistically significant difference between piezoelectric and conventional implant site preparation (RR = 0.98, 95% CI: 0.94, 1.03; I2 = 0%, P = .86). On the other side, the piezoelectric group had better stability in the eighth week (MD = 4.24, 95% CI: 1.36, 7.12; I2 = 0%, P = .80) and 12th week (MD = 3.33, 95% CI: 0.59, 6.08; I2 = 0%, P = .87) compared with the conventional group. CONCLUSION: Within the limitations of this study, it suggests that the survival rate of implants may not be influenced by the site preparation techniques (piezoelectric vs conventional), but the piezoelectric group may achieve better stability than the conventional group.
PURPOSE: This study aimed to assess the stability and survival rate of dental implants inserted with different site preparation techniques-piezoelectric inserts versus traditional rotary instruments. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Correlative research was located by searching articles in PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library. This was accomplished independently by two different reviewers and supplemented by a manual search. Only prospective studies evaluating piezoelectric vs conventional implant site preparation in dental implantation were included in this review. A meta-analysis was performed on the stability and survival rate of implants. RESULTS: One thousand fifty-five articles were identified following the search strategy, of which five studies were finally included in this meta-analysis. With regard to the survival rate of implants, there was no statistically significant difference between piezoelectric and conventional implant site preparation (RR = 0.98, 95% CI: 0.94, 1.03; I2 = 0%, P = .86). On the other side, the piezoelectric group had better stability in the eighth week (MD = 4.24, 95% CI: 1.36, 7.12; I2 = 0%, P = .80) and 12th week (MD = 3.33, 95% CI: 0.59, 6.08; I2 = 0%, P = .87) compared with the conventional group. CONCLUSION: Within the limitations of this study, it suggests that the survival rate of implants may not be influenced by the site preparation techniques (piezoelectric vs conventional), but the piezoelectric group may achieve better stability than the conventional group.