Biomechanical and histomorphometric analysis of osseodensification drilling versus conventional technique: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Objectives: This systematic review aimed to search the literature for the answer to the following questions. In human studies: Does the osseodensification technique increase the resonance frequency analysis given in implant stability quotient value and the insertion torque value compared to the conventional technique? In animal studies: Does the osseodensification technique increase implant stability quotient, bone-to-implant contact, and bone area fraction occupancy values over the conventional technique?

Data sources: A search for studies was carried out in eight databases until August 2021. Out of the 447 publications found, 11 were included.

Results: In human studies, osseodensification technique showed better results for implant stability quotient values with a summarized median difference of 8.57. As for secondary stability, there was no significant difference, with summarized median difference of 4.49 in favor of the osseodensification technique. In animal studies, all results were favorable to the osseodensification technique. Regarding insertion torque, bone-to-implant contact, and bone area fraction occupancy between counterclockwise osseodensification technique vs conventional, the mean difference was 46.79 for insertion torque, 2.17 for bone-to-implant contact, and 2.11 for bone area fraction occupancy. High heterogeneity was observed between the studies. The risk of bias in humans was moderate in three studies and low in one; and in animal studies, four presented moderate risk, two low risk, and one high risk. The certainty of evidence ranged from low to moderate.

Conclusion: The osseodensification technique showed improvement concerning the resonance frequency and the insertion torque value of implants in human studies. In addition, it increased the values of bone-to-implant contact, bone area fraction occupancy, and implant stability quotient in animal studies, when compared to the conventional technique.