Implant Stability of Osseodensification Drilling Versus Conventional Surgical Technique: A Systematic Review.

PURPOSE: This systematic review aimed to appraise the available evidence on the clinical characteristics produced by osseodensification drilling compared with the conventional drilling technique. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Five databases (PubMed, Google Scholar, LILACS, EMBASE, and CENTRAL) were searched up to July 2020. Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) and nonrandomized studies of interventions (NRSIs) that compared osseodensification drilling with conventional drilling in humans were included. Random-effects meta-analyses of standardized mean difference (MD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) and risk ratio were performed. RESULTS: Three NRSIs fulfilled the inclusion criteria, and all were scored as low risk of bias. Meta-analysis showed that the osseodensification drilling technique presented higher average implant stability quotient (ISQ) scores at baseline (MD: 13.1, 95% CI: 10.0 to 16.1, P < .0001) than conventional drilling, with complete homogeneity (I(2) = 0.0%). Furthermore, osseodensification drilling presented higher average ISQ scores at follow-up (MD: 5.99, 95% CI: 1.3 to 10.6, P < .0001) than conventional drilling, with high homogeneity (I(2) = 73.0%). CONCLUSION: This systematic review showed that osseodensification presented consistently higher ISQ at baseline and at 4 to 6 months after implant placement compared with conventional drilling. However, these results should be carefully interpreted since only three studies were selected in this meta-analysis. In the future, RCTs will be necessary to confirm the consistency of these results.