Does the instrument used for the implant site preparation influence the bone–implant interface? A systematic review of clinical and animal studies

• Published in: International journal of oral and maxillofacial surgery 2019-01, Vol.48 (1), p.97-107
• Main Authors: Tretto, P.H.W., Fabris, V., Cericato, G.O., Sarkis-Onofre, R., Bacchi, A.
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: biomechanics; Dentistry; histological analysis; implant site preparation; implant survival
• ISSN: 0901-5027; 1399-0020
• DOI: 10.1016/j.ijom.2018.04.005

This systematic review evaluates the influence of the instrument used for the implant site preparation on the bone–implant interface. Any type of clinical or animal study were searched for in MEDLINE/PubMed, ISI Web of Science, and SciVerse Scopus. Two independent reviewers screened titles/abstracts of articles and the full-text of potentially eligible studies. Comparisons of bone to implant contact and crestal bone loss were estimated using pairwise meta-analysis. Twenty-nine studies met the inclusion criteria. The instruments identified in the articles were conventional drills (CDs), osteotome (OT), piezoelectric device (PD), Er:YAG LASER (LS) and osseodensification drills (ODs). The meta-analysis on bone to implant contact suggested no difference between CDs and other techniques and the meta-analysis on crestal bone loss suggested no difference between CDs and PD. The survival of implants in sites prepared with CDs vs. OT or PD presented no significant differences. The use of PD provided lower inflammatory response and earlier bone formation when compared to CDs. ODs provided significant biomechanical improvement in comparison to CDs. LS did not provide any relevant improvement in comparison to CDs or PD. The influence of the instrument used for implant site preparation depended on the property evaluated.