Piezoelectric versus conventional techniques for orthognathic surgery: Systematic review and meta-analysis

A systematic review and meta-analysis of the advantages and disadvantages of the piezo surgery comparing with conventional osteotomy in orthognathic surgery.

We conducted this systemic review in accordance with the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analysis (PRISMA) statement. We searched for relevant studies in the PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase databases, Lilacs, Scopus and Science Direct to identify prospective and retrospective studies, compare patient outcomes (intraoperative blood loss, operative time, neurosensory disturbance) after performing orthognathic surgery by conventional saw or piezo-electric device. According to pool individual results we used the mean difference (MD) with the 95% confidence interval (95% CI).

Among three studies that used conventional saw and three studies used piezo-electric device and nine studies used both techniques, the operative time required to perform orthognathic standard procedures was longer using piezo-electric device compared to conventional saw. The results showed that during using the conventional saw to perform orthognathic surgery the amount of the blood loss was higher than the amount while using piezo-electric device (MD -140.4 mL; P = 0.29). based on the studies that evaluated neurosensory disturbance, after 3 months and 6 months respectively, neurosensory disturbance was seen in 23.8% and 23.4% of patient who underwent conventional osteotomy versus 4.3% and 2.4% of the patients who underwent surgery in which piezo surgery was used. Our meta-analysis showed difference in neurosensory disturbance between piezo-surgery and conventional surgery at 3 months (MD -19.5; P = 0.11) and 6 months (MD -21; P = 0.5) postoperatively.

Piezo-electric device enabled lower blood loss and higher nerve integrity rates in outcomes according to the complications that associated with orthognathic surgery.