PURPOSE: This study compared piezoelectric (PE) and conventional drills (CD) for maxillary aesthetic zone implant insertion.
MATERIAL AND METHODS: This was a prospective split-mouth study. Implants were divided into two groups. Beds were prepared with CDs in group I and PE in group II. The implant stability quotient (ISQ) of the mechanical implant stability (MIS) was measured intraoperatively. The ISQ of the biological implant stability (BIS) was recorded at postoperative second and fourth months. Marginal bone loss (MBL) and bone density (BMD) were measured in the first and second years after prosthetic loading. The osteotomy time was also documented for both techniques. P values <0.05 were considered significant.
RESULTS: Sixty implants in 30 patients were included. PE provided a significantly higher ISQ. All values were above 70 throughout the follow-up period. The mean of the ISQ for MIS was 63.78 ± 1.03 and 73.89 ± 1.05 in group I and group II, respectively (p = 0.003). PE needed significantly longer osteotomy time with a mean of 11.99 ± 0.839 min. The BIS quality had high stability in group II and medium stability in group I throughout the study period. Its values decreased in both groups. Group II had a lesser percentage of decrease. However, it was significant only at time intervals between intraoperative and two months' postoperative (p = 0.004). MBL and BMD demonstrated insignificant results.
CONCLUSION: The implant site preparation with PE devices should be preferred to CDs whenever possible, because they seem to enhance implant stability and osseointegration, especially at the initial stages of healing.
Keywords: Bone cutting Conventional drilling Implant stability Maxillary esthetic zone Osseointegration Piezosurgery