Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Piezotome Versus Surgical Bur: Which is More Effective in Reducing the Postoperative Pain and Edema Following Open Sinus Lift Surgery?

Journal of Maxillofacial and Oral Surgery volume 20, pages 642–648 (2021)Cite this article

Abstract

Objective

The aim of this study was to compare the piezotome versus surgical bur on postoperative edema and pain following open sinus lift surgery.

Materials and methods

This was a double-blinded split mouth randomized clinical trial. The subjects who were candidates for bilateral open sinus lifting in the posterior maxilla were included in this experiment. Each maxillary side was assigned randomly to one group, piezosurgery or surgical diamond bur for sinus lifting. Postoperative pain and edema were evaluated on the second and seventh days after the surgery, using the VAS scale. Data were analyzed by SPSS software.

Results

In this study, 20 subjects including 10 females (50%) and 10 males (50%) with a mean age of 50.87 ± 9.04 years participated. The mean duration of surgery in piezosurgery (240.13 ± 49.5 s) was significantly higher than the surgical bur technique (135.07 ± 43.53 s) (P < 0.001). Pain and edema were significantly decreased on the seventh day postoperatively compared to the second day in both group (P < 0.05). Pain and edema were similar between the two study groups on the second and seventh days after surgery.

Conclusion

The results of this study depicted that the piezosurgery clinical outcomes were similar to surgical bur following open sinus lift surgery.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Access options

Buy single article

Instant access to the full article PDF.

USD 39.95

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

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

References

  1. Shahakbari R, Eshghpour M, Mianbandi V, Pourgonabadi S, Tohidi E, Seyedi S et al (2019) The comparison of utilizing piezotome and surgical disc in ridge splitting of atrophic edentulous maxillary ridge. J Maxillofac Oral Surg. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12663-019-01253-6

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  2. Liu J, Hua C, Pan J, Han B, Tang X (2018) Piezosurgery vs conventional rotary instrument in the third molar surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. J Dent Sci 13(4):342–349. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jds.2016.09.006

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  3. Velazquez-Cayon R, Romero-Ruiz MM, Torres-Lagares D, Perez-Dorao B, Wainwright M, Abalos-Labruzzi C et al (2012) Hydrodynamic ultrasonic maxillary sinus lift: review of a new technique and presentation of a clinical case. Med Oral Patol Oral Cir Bucal 17(2):e271–e275. https://doi.org/10.4317/medoral.17430

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Stern A, Green J (2012) Sinus lift procedures: an overview of current techniques. Dent Clin N Am 56(1):219–233. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cden.2011.09.003

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Barone A, Santini S, Marconcini S, Giacomelli L, Gherlone E, Covani U (2008) Osteotomy and membrane elevation during the maxillary sinus augmentation procedure. A comparative study: piezoelectric device vs conventional rotative instruments. Clin Oral Implants Res. 19(5):511–515. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0501.2007.01498.x

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Rahpeyma A, Khajehahmadi S (2015) Open sinus lift surgery and the importance of preoperative cone-beam computed tomography scan: a review. J Int Oral Health JIOH 7(9):127–133

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Delilbasi C, Gurler G (2013) Comparison of piezosurgery and conventional rotative instruments in direct sinus lifting. Implant Dent 22(6):662–665. https://doi.org/10.1097/id.0000000000000001

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Radvar MMM, Vaezi S, Shahi A (2017) Clinical comparison of sinus lift via summers osteotomy and piezosurgery. J Mash Dent Sch 41(4):325–330. https://doi.org/10.22038/jmds.2017.9891

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Arakji H, Shokry M, Aboelsaad N (2016) Comparison of piezosurgery and conventional rotary instruments for removal of impacted mandibular third molars: a randomized controlled clinical and radiographic trial. Int J Dent 2016:8169356. https://doi.org/10.1155/2016/8169356

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  10. Atieh MA, Alsabeeha NHM, Tawse-Smith A, Duncan WJ (2018) Piezoelectric versus conventional implant site preparation: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 20(2):261–270. https://doi.org/10.1111/cid.12555

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Magrin GL, Sigua-Rodriguez EA, Goulart DR, Asprino L (2015) Piezosurgery in bone augmentation procedures previous to dental implant surgery: a review of the literature. Open Dent J. 9:426–430. https://doi.org/10.2174/1874210601509010426

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  12. Carini F, Saggese V, Porcaro G, Baldoni M (2014) Piezolelectric surgery in dentistry: a review. Minerva Stomatol 63(1–2):7–34

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Landes CA, Stubinger S, Rieger J, Williger B, Ha TK, Sader R (2008) Critical evaluation of piezoelectric osteotomy in orthognathic surgery: operative technique, blood loss, time requirement, nerve and vessel integrity. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 66(4):657–674. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joms.2007.06.633

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Pereira CC, Gealh WC, Meorin-Nogueira L, Garcia-Junior IR, Okamoto R (2014) Piezosurgery applied to implant dentistry: clinical and biological aspects. J Oral Implantol 40(Spec No):401–408. https://doi.org/10.1563/aaid-joi-d-11-00196

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Rahimi A (2018) Comparison of piezosurgery and conventional hand-pieces in open sinus lifting surgery. Am J Oral Maxillofac Surg 5(1):29–41

    Google Scholar 

  16. Rickert D, Vissink A, Slater JJ, Meijer HJ, Raghoebar GM (2013) Comparison between conventional and piezoelectric surgical tools for maxillary sinus floor elevation. A randomized controlled clinical trial. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 15(2):297–302. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1708-8208.2011.00364.x

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Pasqualini D, Cocero N, Castella A, Mela L, Bracco P (2005) Primary and secondary closure of the surgical wound after removal of impacted mandibular third molars: a comparative study. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 34(1):52–57. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijom.2004.01.023

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Silva LD, de Lima VN, Faverani LP, de Mendonca MR, Okamoto R, Pellizzer EP (2016) Maxillary sinus lift surgery-with or without graft material? A systematic review. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 45(12):1570–1576. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijom.2016.09.023

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Pjetursson BE, Tan WC, Zwahlen M, Lang NP (2008) A systematic review of the success of sinus floor elevation and survival of implants inserted in combination with sinus floor elevation. J Clin Periodontol 35(8 Suppl):216–240. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-051X.2008.01272.x

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Jiang Q, Qiu Y, Yang C, Yang J, Chen M, Zhang Z (2015) Piezoelectric versus conventional rotary techniques for impacted third molar extraction: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Medicine 94(41):1–7

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Pavlikova G, Foltan R, Horka M, Hanzelka T, Borunska H, Sedy J (2011) Piezosurgery in oral and maxillofacial surgery. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 40(5):451–457. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijom.2010.11.013

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Kotrikova B, Wirtz R, Krempien R, Blank J, Eggers G, Samiotis A et al (2006) Piezosurgery–a new safe technique in cranial osteoplasty? Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 35(5):461–465. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijom.2005.12.006

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Heinemann F, Hasan I, Kunert-Keil C, Gotz W, Gedrange T, Spassov A et al (2012) Experimental and histological investigations of the bone using two different oscillating osteotomy techniques compared with conventional rotary osteotomy. Ann Anat 194(2):165–170. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aanat.2011.10.005

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Torrella F, Pitarch J, Cabanes G, Anitua E (1998) Ultrasonic ostectomy for the surgical approach of the maxillary sinus: a technical note. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 13(5):697–700

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

None. This study was self-funded.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Dental Research Center, Mashhad University of Medical Sciences, Mashhad, Iran

    Reza Shahakbari, Ali Labafchi, Saba Salami & Sahand Samieirad

Authors
  1. Reza Shahakbari
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Ali Labafchi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Saba Salami
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Sahand Samieirad
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sahand Samieirad.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of Interest

The authors have no conflict of interest to declare.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Shahakbari, R., Labafchi, A., Salami, S. et al. Piezotome Versus Surgical Bur: Which is More Effective in Reducing the Postoperative Pain and Edema Following Open Sinus Lift Surgery?. J. Maxillofac. Oral Surg. 20, 642–648 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12663-020-01391-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12663-020-01391-2

Keywords

search

Navigation