Mandibular donor site healing after bone graft harvesting in cleft patients: a comparative study of rotary bur and piezoelectric osteotomy techniques

Ivanov A.L.; Reshetnyak E.I.; Sukacheva S.A.

doi:https://doi.org/10.17116/stomat202610501137

Ivanov A.L.

National Medical Research Center — Central Research Institute of Dentistry and Maxillofacial Surgery

ORCID: 0000-0002-0732-0942

Reshetnyak E.I.

National Medical Research Center — Central Research Institute of Dentistry and Maxillofacial Surgery

ORCID: 0000-0003-1831-0077

Sukacheva S.A.

National Medical Research Center — Central Research Institute of Dentistry and Maxillofacial Surgery

ORCID: 0000-0001-7654-7799

Mandibular donor site healing after bone graft harvesting in cleft patients: a comparative study of rotary bur and piezoelectric osteotomy techniques

Authors:

Ivanov A.L., Reshetnyak E.I., Sukacheva S.A.

More about the authors

Journal: Stomatology. 2026;105(1): 37‑42

DOI: 10.17116/stomat202610501137

Read: 382 times

Download PDF (RU)

Contact the author

Table of contents

To cite this article:

Ivanov AL, Reshetnyak EI, Sukacheva SA. Mandibular donor site healing after bone graft harvesting in cleft patients: a comparative study of rotary bur and piezoelectric osteotomy techniques. Stomatology. 2026;105(1):37‑42. (In Russ.)
https://doi.org/10.17116/stomat202610501137

Подписка 2026 Стоматология (Stomatology)

Использование инфографики авторами научных работ

Close metadata

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate mandibular donor site healing after cortical bone graft harvesting in cleft patients, comparing outcomes of osteotomies performed with rotary burs and piezosurgery.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Fifty-three patients (64 bone grafting procedures) were included. Autogenous grafts were harvested from the mandibular body using either a rotary bur (n=43) or a piezoelectric device (n=21). Healing was assessed by CT 5—24 months postoperatively using a 4-grade scale. Statistical analysis employed the Shapiro—Wilk test, Mann—Whitney U test, and Spearman correlation (p<0.05).

RESULTS

Mean healing scores were 3.7±0.6 for the rotary group and 2.1±1.0 for the piezosurgery group (p<0.01). No significant correlation was found between postoperative time and healing (r=0.11 and –0.37, respectively). In the piezosurgery group, patients older than 13—14 years demonstrated reduced bone regeneration and higher outcome variability.

CONCLUSION

Piezosurgery did not improve bone healing at the mandibular donor site and was associated with slower regeneration compared with rotary osteotomy. Rotary burs provided more stable and predictable results. The advantages of piezoelectric surgery appear primarily technical rather than biological.

Keywords:

alveolar bone grafting

mandibular donor site

piezosurgery

bone healing

cleft lip and palate

Authors:

Ivanov A.L.

National Medical Research Center — Central Research Institute of Dentistry and Maxillofacial Surgery

ORCID: 0000-0002-0732-0942

Reshetnyak E.I.

National Medical Research Center — Central Research Institute of Dentistry and Maxillofacial Surgery

ORCID: 0000-0003-1831-0077

Sukacheva S.A.

National Medical Research Center — Central Research Institute of Dentistry and Maxillofacial Surgery

ORCID: 0000-0001-7654-7799

Received:

05.10.2025

Accepted:

21.11.2025

Close metadata

References:

Pavlíková G, Foltán R, Horká M, Hanzelka T, Borunská H, Sedý J. Piezosurgery in oral and maxillofacial surgery. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2011; 40(5):451-457. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijom.2010.11.013
Vercellotti T. Technological characteristics and clinical indications of piezoelectric bone surgery. Minerva Stomatol. 2004;53(5):207-214. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15263877/
Lakshmiganthan M, Gokulanathan S, Shanmugasundaram N, Daniel R, Ramesh SB. Piezosurgical osteotomy for harvesting intraoral block bone graft. J Pharm Bioallied Sci. 2012; 4(2):165-168. https://doi.org/10.4103/0975-7406.100260
Chiriac G, Herten M, Schwarz F, Rothamel D, Becker J. Autogenous bone chips: influence of a new piezoelectric device (Piezosurgery) on chip morphology, cell viability and differentiation. J Clin Periodontol. 2005;32(9): 994-999. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-051x.2005.00809.x
von See C, Gellrich NC, Rücker M, Kokemüller H, Kober H, Stöver E. Investigation of perfusion in osseous vessels in close vicinity to piezo-electric bone cutting. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2012; 50(3):251-255. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bjoms.2011.04.069
Rashad A, Sadr-Eshkevari P, Weuster M, Schmitz I, Prochnow N, Maurer P. Material attrition and bone micromorphology after conventional and ultrasonic implant site preparation. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2013;24(100):110-114. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0501.2011.02389.x
Birkenfeld F, Becker ME, Harder S, Lucius R, Kern M. Increased intraosseous temperature caused by ultrasonic devices during bone surgery and the influences of working pressure and cooling irrigation. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2012; 27(6):1382-1388. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21596461/
Schütz S, Egger J, Kühl S, Filippi A, Lambrecht JT. Intraosseous temperature changes during the use of piezosurgical inserts in vitro. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2012;41(11):1338-1343. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijom.2012.06.007
Demirbilek N, Evren C. Is Piezoelectric Surgery Really Harmless to Soft Tissue? J Craniofac Surg. 2019; 30(7):1966-1969. https://doi.org/10.1097/scs.0000000000005598
Di Alberti L, Donnini F, Di Alberti C, Camerino M. A comparative study of bone densitometry during osseointegration: piezoelectric surgery versus rotary protocols. Quintessence Int. 2010;41(8):639-644. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/20657852