“Refining the cut: A glimpse at piezosurgery and conventional rotary techniques in third molar surgery.” A pilot study.
Keywords:
PIEZOSURGERY, OSTEOTOMY, CONVENTIONAL ROTARY, ADVANCES IN MAXILLOFACIAL SURGERY
Abstract
Piezosurgery is a surgical method that employs ultrasonic vibrations to accurately slice through bone tissue. It is frequently utilized in dental and maxillofacial operations for tasks such as bone extraction, bone reshaping, and implant insertion, providing advantages such as minimal soft tissue damage, decreased bleeding, and enhanced patient comfort. This pilot study includes ten subjects, it is a split mouth study in which bilateral third molar impactions are treated with piezosurgery and conventional rotary technique.For osteotomy, piezosurgery has been demonstrated to be a safe and efficient technique that maintains soft tissue integrity while reducing postoperative problems. Better postoperative healing is taken into consideration while compensating for the longer operating duration. The study concludes that piezosurgery is more efficient and minimally invasive advancement for maxillofacial surgeons, it needs precision and expertise.References
1. Jiang Q, Qiu Y, Yang C, Yang J, Chen M, Zhang Z. Piezoelectric Versus Conventional Rotary Techniques for Impacted Third Molar Extraction: A Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials. Medicine (Baltimore). 2015 Oct;94(41):e1685. doi: 10.1097/MD.0000000000001685. PMID: 26469902; PMCID: PMC4616780.
2. KirliTopcu SI, Palancioglu A, Yaltirik M, Koray M. Piezoelectric Surgery Versus Conventional Osteotomy in Impacted Lower Third Molar Extraction: Evaluation of Perioperative Anxiety, Pain, and Paresthesia. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2019 Mar;77(3):471-477. doi: 10.1016/j.joms.2018.11.015. Epub 2018 Nov 26. PMID: 30578750.
3. Application of Piezosurgery in Surgical Extraction of Impacted Mandibular Third Molars Versus Conventional Rotatory Technique: A Randomized Controlled Trial :JyotsnaRajan, Abhay Taranath Kamath, Srikanth Gadicherla, Manish Bhagania, Kalyana Chakravarthy Pentapatihttps://doi.org/10.4034/PBOCI.2019.191.79
4. Mohammed Sabe AlArab, Fawaz Jaber, Jehad Kharfan, AbdalrahmanAlhamood. Extraction of impacted lower third molars using bone splitting technique with ultrasonic (Surgical piezo): A clinical study. Int J Appl Dent Sci 2020;6(2):239-242.
5. Aly LAA, Piezoelectric surgery: Applications in oral & maxillofacial surgery, Future Dental Journal (2018), doi: 10.1016/j.fdj.2018.09.002.
6. Schaller BJ, Gruber R, Merten HA, Kruschat T, Schliephake H, Buchfelder M, Ludwig HC. Piezoelectric bone surgery: a revolutionary technique for minimally invasive surgery in cranial base and spinal surgery? Technical note. Neurosurgery. 2005 Oct;57(4 Suppl):E410; discussion E410. doi: 10.1227/01.neu.0000176700.77461.c9. PMID: 16234663.
7. Maurer P, Kriwalsky MS, Block Veras R, Vogel J, Syrowatka F, Heiss C. Micromorphometrical analysis of conventional osteotomy techniques and ultrasonic osteotomy at the rabbit skull. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2008 Jun;19(6):570-5. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0501.2007.01516.x. PMID: 18474063
8. Goyal M, Marya K, Jhamb A, Chawla S, Sonoo PR, Singh V, Aggarwal A. 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 Sep;50(6):556-61. doi: 10.1016/j.bjoms.2011.10.010. Epub 2011 Nov 15. PMID: 22088359
9. Rullo R, Addabbo F, Papaccio G, D'Aquino R, Festa VM. Piezoelectric device vs. conventional rotative instruments in impacted third molar surgery: relationships between surgical difficulty and postoperative pain with histological evaluations. J Craniomaxillofac Surg. 2013 Mar;41(2):e33-8. doi: 10.1016/j.jcms.2012.07.007. Epub 2012 Aug 11. PMID: 22890087
10. Esteves JC, Marcantonio E Jr, de Souza Faloni AP, Rocha FR, Marcantonio RA, Wilk K, Intini G. Dynamics of bone healing after osteotomy with piezosurgery or conventional drilling - histomorphometrical, immunohistochemical, and molecular analysis. J Transl Med. 2013 Sep 23;11:221. doi: 10.1186/1479-5876-11-221. PMID: 24053147; PMCID: PMC3868312
11. 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. doi: 10.1155/2016/8169356. Epub 2016 Aug 14. PMID: 27597866; PMCID: PMC5002292
12. Magesty RA, Galvão EL, de Castro Martins C, Dos Santos CRR, Falci SGM. Rotary Instrument or Piezoelectric for the Removal of Third Molars: a Meta-Analysis. J Maxillofac Oral Surg. 2017 Mar;16(1):13-21. doi: 10.1007/s12663-016-0938-y. Epub 2016 Jul 9. PMID: 28286381; PMCID: PMC5328876.
13. Soo W, Rahman R, Taib H. Effects of lower third molar removal on attachment level and alveolar bone height of the adjacent second molar. Arch Orofacial Sci. 2009; 4: 36-40.
2. KirliTopcu SI, Palancioglu A, Yaltirik M, Koray M. Piezoelectric Surgery Versus Conventional Osteotomy in Impacted Lower Third Molar Extraction: Evaluation of Perioperative Anxiety, Pain, and Paresthesia. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2019 Mar;77(3):471-477. doi: 10.1016/j.joms.2018.11.015. Epub 2018 Nov 26. PMID: 30578750.
3. Application of Piezosurgery in Surgical Extraction of Impacted Mandibular Third Molars Versus Conventional Rotatory Technique: A Randomized Controlled Trial :JyotsnaRajan, Abhay Taranath Kamath, Srikanth Gadicherla, Manish Bhagania, Kalyana Chakravarthy Pentapatihttps://doi.org/10.4034/PBOCI.2019.191.79
4. Mohammed Sabe AlArab, Fawaz Jaber, Jehad Kharfan, AbdalrahmanAlhamood. Extraction of impacted lower third molars using bone splitting technique with ultrasonic (Surgical piezo): A clinical study. Int J Appl Dent Sci 2020;6(2):239-242.
5. Aly LAA, Piezoelectric surgery: Applications in oral & maxillofacial surgery, Future Dental Journal (2018), doi: 10.1016/j.fdj.2018.09.002.
6. Schaller BJ, Gruber R, Merten HA, Kruschat T, Schliephake H, Buchfelder M, Ludwig HC. Piezoelectric bone surgery: a revolutionary technique for minimally invasive surgery in cranial base and spinal surgery? Technical note. Neurosurgery. 2005 Oct;57(4 Suppl):E410; discussion E410. doi: 10.1227/01.neu.0000176700.77461.c9. PMID: 16234663.
7. Maurer P, Kriwalsky MS, Block Veras R, Vogel J, Syrowatka F, Heiss C. Micromorphometrical analysis of conventional osteotomy techniques and ultrasonic osteotomy at the rabbit skull. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2008 Jun;19(6):570-5. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0501.2007.01516.x. PMID: 18474063
8. Goyal M, Marya K, Jhamb A, Chawla S, Sonoo PR, Singh V, Aggarwal A. 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 Sep;50(6):556-61. doi: 10.1016/j.bjoms.2011.10.010. Epub 2011 Nov 15. PMID: 22088359
9. Rullo R, Addabbo F, Papaccio G, D'Aquino R, Festa VM. Piezoelectric device vs. conventional rotative instruments in impacted third molar surgery: relationships between surgical difficulty and postoperative pain with histological evaluations. J Craniomaxillofac Surg. 2013 Mar;41(2):e33-8. doi: 10.1016/j.jcms.2012.07.007. Epub 2012 Aug 11. PMID: 22890087
10. Esteves JC, Marcantonio E Jr, de Souza Faloni AP, Rocha FR, Marcantonio RA, Wilk K, Intini G. Dynamics of bone healing after osteotomy with piezosurgery or conventional drilling - histomorphometrical, immunohistochemical, and molecular analysis. J Transl Med. 2013 Sep 23;11:221. doi: 10.1186/1479-5876-11-221. PMID: 24053147; PMCID: PMC3868312
11. 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. doi: 10.1155/2016/8169356. Epub 2016 Aug 14. PMID: 27597866; PMCID: PMC5002292
12. Magesty RA, Galvão EL, de Castro Martins C, Dos Santos CRR, Falci SGM. Rotary Instrument or Piezoelectric for the Removal of Third Molars: a Meta-Analysis. J Maxillofac Oral Surg. 2017 Mar;16(1):13-21. doi: 10.1007/s12663-016-0938-y. Epub 2016 Jul 9. PMID: 28286381; PMCID: PMC5328876.
13. Soo W, Rahman R, Taib H. Effects of lower third molar removal on attachment level and alveolar bone height of the adjacent second molar. Arch Orofacial Sci. 2009; 4: 36-40.
Published
2025-07-05
How to Cite
Nihalani, T., Brijesh Gupta, Jaggi Nitin, Nikhil Purohit, Paridhi Pateria, Shivani Adhikary, & Roma Gupta. (2025). “Refining the cut: A glimpse at piezosurgery and conventional rotary techniques in third molar surgery.” A pilot study. UNIVERSITY JOURNAL OF DENTAL SCIENCES, 11(2). https://doi.org/10.21276/ujds.2025.v11.i2.5
Section
Original Research Paper
