Comparing Piezosurgery and Rotary Techniques in Direct Maxillary Sinus Lifting

Enas Abdulsattar Abdulmageed; Rana Razzaq Noor

doi:10.54133/ajms.v6i2.783

Authors

Enas Abdulsattar Abdulmageed Al-Wasity Teaching Hospital, Baghdad, Iraq https://orcid.org/0009-0007-7160-8696
Rana Razzaq Noor Al-Wasity Teaching Hospital, Baghdad, Iraq

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.54133/ajms.v6i2.783

Keywords:

Maxillary sinus elevation, Osteotomy, Piezosurgery

Abstract

Background: Sinus lifting is a common surgery for bone loss in the posterior part of the maxilla. It facilitates inserting prostheses and rehabilitating the edentulous posterior maxilla. If the alveolar bone remains less than 5 mm, direct sinus lifting using the rotatory handpiece is used to perform the lateral window approach. Objective: To compare piezosurgery and rotary techniques in direct sinus lifting. Methods: A cross-sectional study was conducted from October 2022 to August 2023. We enrolled 15 patients, ranging in age from 45 to 66 years, who required bilateral direct sinus lifting. Piezosurgery was performed on one side, while rotary surgery was performed on the other. We assessed the intraoperative time of opening the bony window, as well as the postoperative pain, swelling, and mouth opening at 1 hour, 2 days, 7 days, and 1 month after the procedure. Results: With rotary tools, the time for opening a bony window was significantly shorter. Piezosurgery resulted in significantly less swelling after 2 days, but there was no significant difference between the two groups after 7 days and 1 month. Regarding mouth opening, the piezo group yielded a significantly larger difference after 2 days, but the two groups demonstrated no significant difference after 7 days and 1 month. Regarding pain, the piezo group demonstrated a lower score after 6 hours and 2 days, but the two groups demonstrated no significant difference after 7 days. Conclusions: Postoperatively, piezosurgery for sinus lifting leads to less pain, swelling, and limited mouth opening.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Sharan A, Madjar D. Maxillary sinus pneumatization following extractions: a radiographic study. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2008;23(1):48-56. PMID: 18416412.

Agbaje JO, Jacobs R, Maes F, Michiels K, van Steenberghe D. Volumetric analysis of extraction sockets using cone beam computed tomography: a pilot study on ex vivo jaw bone. J Clin Periodontol. 2007;34(11):985-990. PMID: 17935503.

Mauri M, de Oliveira CO, Franche G. Pneumosinus dilatans of the maxillary sinus. Case report. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol. 2000;109(3):278-280. PMID: 10737311.

Lemos CA, Ferro-Alves ML, Okamoto R, Mendonça MR, Pellizzer EP. Short dental implants versus standard dental implants placed in the posterior jaws: A systematic review and meta-analysis. J Dent. 2016;47:8-17. PMID: 26804969

Raghoebar GM, Onclin P, Boven GC, Vissink A, Meijer HJA. Long-term effectiveness of maxillary sinus floor augmentation: A systematic review and meta-analysis. J Clin Periodontol. 2019;46(Suppl 21):307-318. PMID: 30624789.

Aghaloo TL, Misch C, Lin GH, Iacono VJ, Wang HL. Bone augmentation of the edentulous maxilla for implant placement: A systematic review. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2016;31(Suppl):s19-s30. PMID: 27228250.

Tatum H. Maxillary and sinus implant reconstructions. Dent Clin North Am. 1986;30(2):207-229. PMID: 3516738.

Baldi D, Menini M, Pera F, Ravera G, Pera P. Sinus floor elevation using osteotomes or piezoelectric surgery. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2011;40(5):497-503. PMID: 21353478.

Sohn DS, Lee JS, An KM, Choi BJ. Piezoelectric internal sinus elevation (PISE) technique: A new method for internal sinus elevation. Implant Dentistry. 2009;18. PMID: 20009598.

Kim J, Jang H. A review of complications of maxillary sinus augmentation and available treatment methods. J Korean Assoc Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2019;45(4):220-224. PMID: 31508355.

Gleizal A, Bera JC, Lavandier B, Beziat JL. Craniofacial approach for orbital tumors and ultrasonic bone cutting. J Fr Ophtalmol. 2007;30:882–891. PMID: 18046270.

Labanca M, Azzola F, Vinci R, Rodella LF. Piezoelectric surgery: Twenty years of use. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2008;46:265–269. PMID: 18342999.

Kfouri Fde Á, Duailibi MT, Bretos JL, Carvalho AB, Pallos D, Duailibi SE. Piezoelectric osteotomy for the placement of titanium implants in rabbits: histomorphometry study. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2014;25(10):1182-1188. PMID: 23834351.

Stübinger S, Stricker A, Berg BI. Piezosurgery in implant dentistry. Clin Cosmet Investig Dent. 2015;7:115–124. PMID: 26635486.

Toscano NJ, Holtzclaw D, Rosen PS. The effect of piezoelectric use on open sinus lift perforation: a retrospective evaluation of 56 consecutively treated cases from private practices. J Periodontol. 2010;81(1):167-171. PMID: 20059429.

Lipsky MS, Su S, Crespo CJ, Hung M. Men and oral health: A review of sex and gender differences. Am J Mens Health. 2021;15(3):15579883211016361. PMID: 33993787.

Furuta M, Ekuni D, Irie K, Azuma T, Tomofuji T, Ogura T, et al. Sex differences in gingivitis relate to interaction of oral health behaviors in young people. J Periodontol. 2011;82(4):558-565. PMID: 20936916.

Lam R. Epidemiology and outcomes of traumatic dental injuries: a review of the literature. Aust Dent J. 2016;61(Suppl 1):4-20. PMID: 26923445.

Abuse NIOD. (2020). Are there gender differences in tobacco smoking. Available at: https://nida.nih.gov/publications/research-reports/tobacco-nicotine-e-cigarettes/are-there-gender-differences-in-tobacco-smoking

Padhye NM, Padhye AM, Bhatavadekar NB. Osseodensification -- A systematic review and qualitative analysis of published literature. J Oral Biol Craniofac Res. 2020;10(1):375-380. PMID: 31737477.

Smith WL, Marnett LJ, DeWitt DL. Prostaglandin and thromboxane biosynthesis. Pharmacol Ther. 1991;49(3):153-179. PMID: 1905023.

Arakji H, Shokry M, Aboelsaad N. 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;2016:8169356. PMID: 27597866..

Liu J, Hua C, Pan J, Han B, Tang X. Piezosurgery vs conventional rotary instrument in the third molar surgery: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. J Dent Sci. 2018;13(4):342-349. PMID: 30895143.

Sivolella S, Berengo M, Bressan E, Di Fiore A, Stellini E. Osteotomy for lower third molar germectomy: randomized prospective crossover clinical study comparing piezosurgery and conventional rotatory osteotomy. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2011;69(6):e15-e23. PMID: 21419542.

Sortino F, Pedullà E, Masoli V. The piezoelectric and rotatory osteotomy technique in impacted third molar surgery: comparison of postoperative recovery. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2008;66(12):2444-2448. PMID: 19022121

Chang HH, Lee MS, Hsu YC, Tsai SJ, Lin CP. Comparison of clinical parameters and environmental noise levels between regular surgery and piezosurgery for extraction of impacted third molars. J Formos Med Assoc. 2015;114(10):929-935. PMID: 24661578.

Pradeep PS, Malegowda SS, Muhsina K, Anchan PS, Asal Irfan P. Piezoelectric surgery versus conventional rotary surgical technique for surgical removal of impacted mandibular third molars: A prospective study. J Dent Specialities. 2018;6(2):92-99. doi: 10.18231/2393-9834.2018.0024.

Barone A, Santini S, Marconcini S, Giacomelli L, Gherlone E, Covani U. Osteotomy and membrane elevation during the maxillary sinus augmentation procedure. A comparative study: piezoelectric device vs conventional rotative instruments. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2008;19(5):511–515. PMID: 18371101.

Goyal M, Marya K, Jhamb A, Chawla S, Sonoo PR, Singh V, et al. 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. 2012;50:556–561. PMID: 22088359.

Barone A, Santini S, Sbordone L, Crespi R, Covani U. A clinical study of the outcomes and complications associated with maxillary sinus augmentation. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2006;21(1):81-85. PMID: 16519185.

Itro A, Lupo G, Marra A, Carotenuto A, Cocozza E, Filipi M, et al. The piezoelectric osteotomy technique compared to the one with rotary instruments in the surgery of included third molars. A clinical study. Minerva Stomatol. 2012;61:247. PMID: 22669054.