Evidence Hub

Evaluation of graft cell viability-efficacy of piezoelectric versus manual bone scraper technique

Pekovits K, Wildburger A, Payer M, Hutter H, Jakse N, Dohr G

Journal of oral and maxillofacial surgery : official journal of the American Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons, 2012

20 participants

Abstract

PURPOSE: The aim of the present study was to compare the influence of 2 different bone scrapers with respect to graft quality.

MATERIALS AND METHODS: The study was conducted as a prospective, controlled experimental study of patients selected from the outpatient unit of the Department of Oral Surgery and Radiology (Dental Clinic, Medical University, Graz, Austria). Bone samples were obtained during routine lower third molar removal. Both a manual bone scraper (MS) and a piezoelectric device (PD) were used in directly adjacent regions in each case. As variables, the chip morphology, cell viability, and osteogenic differentiation were investigated. For statistical analysis, the Student t test and Fisher's exact test (P < .05) were applied.

RESULTS: A total of 20 patients (12 women and 8 men, mean age 28.15 ± 5.8 years) were included in the study. A series of 40 bone samples was obtained during lower third molar removal. MS and PD enabled similar intraoral harvest of bone chips. In vitro outgrowth of adherent cells was found in 90% of the MS and 80% of the PD samples after 7 to 18 days, without statistical significance (P = .67). Similar cell viability of outgrowing cells in both groups was observed (94.7% ± 2.2% in the MS group and 94.1% ± 1.6% in the PD group). Reverse transcriptase-polymerase chain reaction analysis and the staining pattern verified osteopotent cells in both groups.

CONCLUSIONS: Both manual and piezoelectric techniques are adequate harvesting technologies…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a cohort study, done in people. Its evidence level is 3 of 5 (Moderate · trial / cohort / secondary analysis). Trials without a large randomized design, cohorts and secondary analyses give moderate evidence. Reported size: 20 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free