Piezosurgery vs conventional rotary instrument in the third molar surgery: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Abstract

Background/purpose: The surgical removal of mandibular third molars is frequently accompanied by significant postsurgical sequelae. Different instruments such as piezosurgery and conventional rotary handpiece have been used to decrease such adverse events. There are controversial results from randomized controlled trials evaluating the effects of Piezosurgery in the mandibular third molar extraction, compared with conventional rotary instrument. This study was performed to determine the impact of piezosurgery versus conventional rotary instrument on postoperative reactions after extraction. Materials and methods: A systematic review and meta-analysis was performed to combine relevant RCTs results. Results: Five RCTs were eligible for this study, enrolling a total of 402 patients. Compared with conventional rotary instrument, pain score at 6 or 7 days and mouth opening at 1 day after surgery was significantly lower in Piezosurgery group (SMD -0.33, 95% CI: −0.56 to −0.10, P = 0.005), as well as swelling score at 7 days after surgery (SMD -1.95, 95% CI: −3.22 to −0.67, P = 0.003). Furthermore, mouth opening at 1 day after surgery was significantly better in patients treated with Piezosurgery (SMD 0.84, 95% CI: 0.19 to 1.49, P = 0.01). However, more operation time will be required for Piezosurgery (MD 6.23, 95% CI: 3.32 to 9.14, P < 0.0001). With regard to analgesic dosage, pooled results from two RCTs suggested there were no significant differences between Piezosurgery and conventional rotary instrument (SMD -1.45, 95% CI: −4.39 to 1.49, P = 0.33). Conclusion: There might be some advantages on third mandibular molar extraction with piezosurgery compared to conventional rotary instrument. More multi-centre trials are required to get more conclusive results. Keywords: Conventional rotary instrument, Oral surgery, Piezosurgery