Histomorphometric and Immunohistochemical Evaluation of Bone Healing Around Implants Placed Using Piezosurgery Versus Conventional Drills: a Split Mouth Randomized Clinical Trial

This was a pilot, parallel-group, doble-blinded, split-mouth, randomized clinical trial.

The study included six patients with bilateral partial edentulism, having in total 12 maxillary or mandibular edentulous alveolar ridges. All patients had been referred to the Unit of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Alma Mater Studiorum, University of Bologna, Italy.

The alveolar ridges were randomized into two groups using a computer-generated method: Group A included six regions where implant sites were prepared by piezosurgery, and Group B six regions prepared by conventional drilling.

Surgical and prosthetic protocol In Group A, all implant sites were prepared with a piezoelectric device with IM1, IM2, IM2-3, or IM3 piezo-inserts according to the manufacturer's protocol (Piezosurgery, Mectron Medical Technology, Carasco, Italy). One or two implants were placed in each edentulous ridge along with an additional 3.3 x 8.5 mm implant, termed a "study fixture", in an adjacent area. In Group B, all implant sites were prepared with conventional drills according to the manufacturer's protocol (Premium, Sweden & Martina, Due Carrare, Padova, Italy); similarly to group A, one or two implants were placed in each edentulous ridge, and an additional 3.3 x 8.5 mm "study-fixture" was placed in the adjacent area.

After cover screw placement, a parallel periapical radiograph was taken and the flap was sutured with 4-0 Vicryl. After surgery, antibiotic therapy (1 g amoxicillin and clavulanic acid every 8 h for 4 days), analgesic therapy (nimesulid 200 mg/day for 2 days, continued if pain persisted), and antiseptic therapy (chlorhexidine 0.2% [w/v] three times daily), were prescribed.