Comparative evaluation of osseodensification drilling versus conventional drilling technique on dental implant stability: A systematic review

Abstract

Aim: The present systematic review compares the stability, crestal bone levels and efficacy of osseodensification (OD) drilling techniques for dental implant placement to traditional drilling methods.

Settings and design: The Cochrane online library, PubMed, Scopus, and other well-known online resources are used in the research. Using a systematic review design, the current study examines published qualitative studies with an emphasis on analysis.

Materials and methods: Using precise keywords, a thorough search of pertinent databases was carried out in accordance with PRISMA standards. Studies testing dental implant stability, crestal bone levels and clinical results using both OD and traditional procedures were covered by the inclusion criteria.

Statistical analysis used: The risk of bias and quality of included studies was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale for observational studies and the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool for randomized controlled trials.

Results: A total of 170 patients and 334 implants from Egypt, India, and Brazil were included in eight papers that made up the systematic review. In several clinical situations, osseodensification outperformed standard drilling in terms of implant durability, bone development, and torque data. Statistical analysis presented the lowest risks, while blinded outcome assessment, allocation concealment, random sequence generation, incomplete outcome data and experimental technique revealed higher risks. Bias assessment found various risks across different components.

Conclusion: The thorough examination of eight papers demonstrates that osseodensification is a technique with great promise in the field of dental implants. It exhibits superior torque values, bone development, and stability when compared to traditional drilling. The overall results highlight the potential of osseodensification to improve clinical outcomes and advance the science of dental implantology, even in the face of variances in bias concerns.

Figure 1

Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses flowchart for the review

Figure 2

Risk of bias assessment

Figure 3

Summary of each risk of bias item presented as percentage