Aim: The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to compare, in the lower third molar surgery, the osteotomy techniques with rotary instruments and piezoelectric motors.
Methods: An electronic search was conducted using the following databases: Pubmed, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Oral Health Group Trials Register. Inclusion criteria were: studies in humans, randomized or nonrandomized, comparing the extraction of third molars that required osteotomy and/or odontosection with rotary instrument and osteotomy and/or odontosection with piezoelectric motor assistance. The analysis and inclusion of articles was performed by two reviewers independently. An evaluation of the quality of articles and data extraction was carried out.
Results: From a total of nine hundred seventy four (974) trials, eleven articles were included in the qualitative analysis, and seven were included in the quantitative analysis. Rotary instruments were faster than the piezoelectric surgery (95 % CI 0.34 to 1.16). The piezoelectric surgery showed better results when compared with roatry instruments when trismus was assessed in 2 (95 % CI 0.65 to 1.69), 3 (95 % CI 0.63 to 1.67) and 5 (95 % CI 0.03 to 2.26) days after surgery. Seven days after surgery, there were no differences between the techniques (95 % CI (-0.022) to (-1.49)).
Conclusion: The piezoelectric surgery was effective in reducing pain, swelling and trismus in third molar surgery, but the same requires greater surgical time than the rotary instruments.
Keywords: Oral surgery; Piezoeletric surgery; Third molar.