Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Rotary Instrument or Piezoelectric for the Removal of Third Molars: a Meta-Analysis

  • Review Paper
  • Published:
Journal of Maxillofacial and Oral Surgery Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Aim

The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to compare, in the lower third molar surgery, the osteotomy techniques with rotary instruments and piezoelectric motors.

Methods

An electronic search was conducted using the following databases: Pubmed, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Oral Health Group Trials Register. Inclusion criteria were: studies in humans, randomized or nonrandomized, comparing the extraction of third molars that required osteotomy and/or odontosection with rotary instrument and osteotomy and/or odontosection with piezoelectric motor assistance. The analysis and inclusion of articles was performed by two reviewers independently. An evaluation of the quality of articles and data extraction was carried out.

Results

From a total of nine hundred seventy four (974) trials, eleven articles were included in the qualitative analysis, and seven were included in the quantitative analysis. Rotary instruments were faster than the piezoelectric surgery (95 % CI 0.34 to 1.16). The piezoelectric surgery showed better results when compared with roatry instruments when trismus was assessed in 2 (95 % CI 0.65 to 1.69), 3 (95 % CI 0.63 to 1.67) and 5 (95 % CI 0.03 to 2.26) days after surgery. Seven days after surgery, there were no differences between the techniques (95 % CI (−0.022) to (−1.49)).

Conclusion

The piezoelectric surgery was effective in reducing pain, swelling and trismus in third molar surgery, but the same requires greater surgical time than the rotary instruments.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Falci SG, de Castro CR, Santos RC, de Souza Lima LD, Ramos-Jorge ML, Botelho AM, dos Santos CR (2012) Association between the presence of partially erupted mandibular third molar and the existence of caries in the distal of the second molars. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 41:1270–1274

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Nunn ME, Fish MD, Garcia RI, Kaye EK, Figueroa R, Gohel A, Ito M, Lee HJ, Williams DE, Miyamoto T (2013) Retained asymptomatic third molars and risk for second molar pathology. J Dent Res 92:1095–1099

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  3. Renton T, Smeeton N, McGurk M (2001) Factors predictive of difficulty of mandibular third molar surgery. Br Dent J 190:607–610

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Alcântara CE, Falci SG, Oliveira-Ferreira F, Santos CR, Pinheiro ML (2014) Pre-emptive effect of dexamethasone and methylprednisolone on pain, swelling, and trismus after third molar surgery: a split-mouth randomized triple-blind clinical trial. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 43:93–98

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Slade GD, Foy SP, Shugars DA, Phillips C, White RP Jr (2004) The impact of third molar symptoms, pain, and swelling on oral health-related quality of life. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 62:1118–1124

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Royer RQ (1969) Use of the chisel in the removal of impacted mandibular third molars. J Oral Surg 27:26–31

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Absi EG, Shepherd JP (1993) A comparison of morbidity following the removal of lower third molars by the lingual split and surgical bur methods. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 22:149–153

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Campbell JH, Murray RA (2004) Handpiece speed and postoperative outcomes in third molar surgery. J Indiana Dent Assoc 83:4–6

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Monnazzi MS, Real Gabrielli MF, Passeri LA, Cabrini Gabrielli MA, Spin-Neto R, Pereira-Filho VA (2014) Inferior alveolar nerve function after sagittal split osteotomy by reciprocating saw or piezosurgery instrument: prospective double-blinded study. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 72:1168–1172

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Bassetti R, Bassetti M, Mericske-Stern R, Enkling N (2013) Piezoelectric alveolar ridge-splitting technique with simultaneous implant placement: a cohort study with 2-year radiographic results. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 28:1570–1580

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. da Silva Neto UT, Joly JC, Gehrke AS (2014) Clinical analysis of the stability of dental implants after preparation of the site by conventional drilling or piezosurgery. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg 52:149–153

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Camargo Filho GP, Corrêa L, Costa C, Pannuti CM, Schmelzeisen R, Luz JG (2010) Comparative study of two autogenous graft techniques using piezosugery for sinus lifting. Acta Cir Bras 25:485–489

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Mouraret S, Houschyar KS, Hunter DJ, Smith AA, Jew OS, Girod S, Helms JA (2014) Cell viability after osteotomy and bone harvesting: comparison of piezoelectric surgery and conventional bur. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 43:966–971

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Mantovani E, Arduino PG, Schierano G, Ferrero L, Gallesio G, Mozzati M, Russo A, Scully C, Carossa S (2014) A split-mouth randomized clinical trial to evaluate the performance of piezosurgery compared with traditional technique in lower wisdom tooth removal. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 72:1890–1897

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Barone A, Marconcini S, Giacomelli L, Rispoli L, Calvo JL, Covni U (2010) A randomized clinical evaluation of ultrasound bone surgery versus traditional rotary instruments in lower third molar extraction. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 68:330–336

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG, PRISMA Group (2009) Reprint—preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. Phys Ther 89:873–880

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Higgins JPT, Green S. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions. Version 5.1.0 [updated March 2011]. The Cochrane Collaboration, 2011. http://www.cochrane-handbook.org

  18. Borenstein M, Hedges LV, Higgins J, Rothsten H (2005) Comprehensive meta-analysis version 2. Biostat, Englewood

    Google Scholar 

  19. Higgins JP, Thompson SG (2002) Quantifying heterogeneity in meta-analysis. Stat Med 21:1539–1558

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Borensterin M, Hedges LV, Higgins J, HR Rothstein (2009) Introduction to meta-analysis. Wiley, Chichester

    Book  Google Scholar 

  21. Biljana M, Jelena M, Branislav J, Milorad R (1999) Bias in meta-analysis and funnel plot asymmetry. Stud Health Technol Inform 68:323–328

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Egger M, Davey SG, Schneider M, Minder C (1997) Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test. BMJ 315:629–634

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  23. Goyal M, Mrya K, Jhamb A, Chawala S, Sonoo PR, Singh V, Aggarwal A (2012) Comparative evaluation of surgical outcome after removal of impacted mandibular third molars using a Piezotome or a conventional handpiece: a prospective study. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg 50:556–561

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Rullo R, Addaboo F, Papaccio G, D’Aquino R, Festa VW (2013) Piezoelectric device vs. Conventional rotative instruments in impacted third molar surgery: relationships between surgical difficulty and postoperative pain with histological evaluations. J Craniomaxillofac Surg 41:33–38

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Sivolella S, Berengo M, Bressan E, Di Fiore A, Stellini E (2011) Osteotomy for lower third molar germectomy: randomized prospective crossover clinical study comparing piezosurgery and conventional rotator osteotomy. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 69:15–23

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Bartuli FN, Luciani F, Caddeo F, De Chiara L, Di Dio M, Piva P, Ottria L, Arcuri C (2013) Piezosurgery vs High Speed Rotatory Handpiece: a comparison between the two techniques in the impacted third molar surgery. Oral Implantol (Rome) 6:5–10

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Chang HH, Lee MS, Hsu YC, Tsai SJ, Lin CP (2015) Comparison of clinical parameters and environmental noise levels between regular surgery and piezosurgery for extraction of impacted third molars. J Formos Med Assoc 114:929–935

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Piersanti L, Dilorenzo M, Monaco G, Marchetti C (2014) Piezosurgery of conventional rotator instruments for inferior third molar extractions? J Oral Maxillofac Surg 72:1647–1652

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Sortino F, Pedullà E, Masoli V (2008) The piezoelectric and rotatory osteotomy technique in impacted third molar surgery: comparison of postoperative recovery. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 66:2444–2448

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Itro A, Lupo G, Marra A, Carotenuto A, Cocozza E, Filipi M, D’Amato S (2012) The piezoeletric osteotomy technique compared to the one with rotatory instruments in the surgery of included third molars. A clinical study. Minerva Stomatol 61:247–253

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Lopez-Lopez J, Jan-Pallí E, González-Navarro B, Jané-Salas E, Estrugo-Devesa A, Milani M (2015) Efficacy of chlorexidine, dexpanthenol, allantoin and chitosan gel in comparison with bicarbonate oral rinse in controlling post-interventional inflamation, pain and cicatrization in subjects undergoing dental surgery. Curr Med Res Opin 15:1–16

    Google Scholar 

  32. Beziat JL, Bera JC, Lavandier B, Gleizal A (2007) Ultrasonic osteotomy as a new technique in craniomaxillofacial surgery. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 36:493–500

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Lago-Mendez L, Diniz-Freitas M, Senra-Rivera C, Gude-Sampedro F, Gándara Rey JM, García-García A (2007) Relationship between surgical difficulty and postoperative pain in lower third molar extractions. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 65:979–983

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Grossi GB, Maiorana C, Garramone RA, Borgonovo A, Beretta M, Farronato D, Santoro F (2007) Effect of submucosal injection of dexamethasone on postoperative discomfort after third molar surgery: a prospective study. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 65:2218–2226

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Jiang Q, Qiu Y, Yang J, Chen M, Zhang Z (2015) Piezoeletric versus conventional rotatory techniques for impacted third molar extraction: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Medicine (Baltimore) 94:1685. doi:10.1097/MD.0000000000001685

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Departamento de Odontologia, Faculdade de Ciências Básicas e da Saúde, Universidade Federal dos Vales do Jequitinhonha e Mucuri, Diamantina, Minas Gerais, Brazil

    Rafael Alvim Magesty

  2. Centro de Pesquisas René Rachou, Fundação Oswaldo Cruz, Belo Horizonte, Brazil

    Endi Lanza Galvão

  3. Pediatric Dentistry, Faculdade de Odontologia, Universidade Federal de Minas Gerias, Belo Horizonte, Brazil

    Carolina de Castro Martins

  4. Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Departamento de Odontologia, Faculdade de Ciências Básicas e da Saúde, Universidade Federal dos Vales do Jequitinhonha e Mucuri, Diamantina, Minas Gerais, Brazil

    Cássio Roberto Rocha dos Santos & Saulo Gabriel Moreira Falci

Authors
  1. Rafael Alvim Magesty
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Endi Lanza Galvão
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Carolina de Castro Martins
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Cássio Roberto Rocha dos Santos
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Saulo Gabriel Moreira Falci
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Saulo Gabriel Moreira Falci.

Ethics declarations

Ethical standards

As this work is a systematic review and meta-analysis, the ethical approval in an ethics committee is not necessary.

Conflicts of interest

The authors state that there are no conflicts of interest in this paper.

Informed consent

As this research did not involve human beings, informed consent was not necessary.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Magesty, R.A., Galvão, E.L., de Castro Martins, C. et al. Rotary Instrument or Piezoelectric for the Removal of Third Molars: a Meta-Analysis. J. Maxillofac. Oral Surg. 16, 13–21 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12663-016-0938-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12663-016-0938-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation