Comparative Evaluation of Piezosurgery Versus Conventional Surgical Implant Placement and Impact on Implant Stability, Bone Density, and Patient Comfort: A Randomized Clinical Study

Abstract

Purpose: This study aimed to comparatively evaluate piezoelectric surgery and conventional surgery for dental implant site preparation, focusing on bone density, implant stability, and peri-implant marginal bone loss, to contribute valuable insights into optimizing dental implant procedures for improved patient care and treatment outcomes. Material and Methods: In this randomized controlled clinical trial with a split-mouth design, 30 patients with a mean age of 35.7 (standard deviation [SD] 7.1) with two edentulous sites, at least one of which was in the posterior mandibular region, were treated sequentially at two sites: Site A, where implant placement was conducted using piezoelectric surgery, and Site B, where conventional surgery was employed. Postsurgical evaluations were conducted at 6 and 9 months. Results: Significant differences were observed between the two techniques. Bone density was greater by 0.035 g/cm2 (p = 0.001) in favor of piezoelectric surgery at 9 months, but not at 6 months. Although there were significant changes in stability within the groups, the difference in the change in implant stability at 6 months between piezoelectric surgery and the control site was not significant at 6 months, Site A (piezoelectric surgery) demonstrated significantly higher implant stability quotient (ISQ) values (mean = 76.7) than Site B (mean = 72.8; p ≤ 0.001). Patient discomfort was significantly greater in the control group than in the piezoelectric surgery group by 1.3 visual analog scale (VAS) (p-value < 0.001). Conclusion: Piezoelectric surgery demonstrated potential benefits over conventional surgery in terms of implant stability, postoperative discomfort, and bone density. These findings highlight the potential of piezoelectric surgery to enhance clinical outcomes and patient satisfaction in dental implant procedures. Further investigation into long-term implant survival rates and esthetic outcomes is warranted. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: ISRCTN99951388; 16CNAHMMDS000002/ISRCTN99951388.