Piezoelectric bone surgery compared with conventional rotary instruments in oral surgery and implantology: Summary and consensus statements of the International Piezoelectric Surgery Academy Consensus Conference 2019

Purpose: Piezoelectric bone surgery was introduced into clinical practice almost 20 years ago as an alternative method for cutting bone in dental surgical procedures, in an attempt to reduce the disadvantages of using conventional rotary instruments. The aim of this Consensus Conference was to evaluate the current evidence concerning the use of piezoelectric surgery in oral surgery and implantology. Materials and methods: Three working groups conducted three meta-analyses with trial sequential analysis, focusing on the use of piezoelectric surgery in impacted mandibular third molar extraction, lateral sinus floor elevation and implant site preparation. The method of preparation of the systematic reviews, based on comprehensive search strategies and following preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidelines, was discussed and standardised. Results: Moderate/low evidence suggests that piezoelectric surgery is significantly associated with a more favourable postoperative course (less pain, less trismus) after impacted mandibular third molar extraction than conventional rotary instruments. Moderate evidence suggests that implants inserted with piezoelectric surgery showed improved secondary stability during the early phases of healing compared with those inserted using a drilling technique. Strong/moderate evidence suggests that piezoelectric surgery prolongs the duration of surgery in impacted mandibular third molar extraction, sinus floor elevation and implant site preparation, but it is unclear whether the slight differences in duration of surgery, even if statistically significant, represent a real clinical advantage for either operator or patient. Weak evidence or insufficient data are present to draw definitive conclusions on the other investigated outcomes. Conclusions: Further well-designed trials are needed to fully evaluate the effects of piezoelectric surgery, especially in implant site preparation and sinus floor elevation. Materials and methods: Three working groups conducted three meta-analyses with trial sequential analysis, focusing on the use of piezoelectric surgery in impacted mandibular third molar extraction, lateral sinus floor elevation and implant site preparation. The method of preparation of the systematic reviews, based on comprehensive search strategies and following preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidelines, was discussed and standardised. Results: Moderate/low evidence suggests that piezoelectric surgery is significantly associated with a more favourable postoperative course (less pain, less trismus) after impacted mandibular third molar extraction than conventional rotary instruments. Moderate evidence suggests that implants inserted with piezoelectric surgery showed improved secondary stability during the early phases of healing compared with those inserted using a drilling technique. Strong/moderate evidence suggests that piezoelectric surgery prolongs the duration of surgery in impacted mandibular third molar extraction, sinus floor elevation and implant site preparation, but it is unclear whether the slight differences in duration of surgery, even if statistically significant, represent a real clinical advantage for either operator or patient. Weak evidence or insufficient data are present to draw definitive conclusions on the other investigated outcomes. Conclusions: Further well-designed trials are needed to fully evaluate the effects of piezoelectric surgery, especially in implant site preparation and sinus floor elevation.