Piezoelectric Versus Conventional Osteotomy Instruments in Bimaxillary Orthognathic Surgery: A Narrative Review of Surgical Efficiency, Safety, and Clinical Outcomes
4 affiliations
- 1University Dental Clinic, University of Medicine, 1011 Tirana, Albania
- 2Isufi Academy, 1011 Tirana, Albania
- 3Faculty of Dental Medicine, University of Medicine, 1005 Tirana, Albania
- 4Department of Oral, Maxillofacial and Facial Plastic Surgery, University Hospital Düsseldorf, Heinrich Heine University, 40225 Düsseldorf, Germany
Abstract
Instrument selection in bimaxillary orthognathic surgery must balance cutting efficiency, measured blood loss, and injury to adjacent structures. This narrative review distinguishes the evidence from combined Le Fort I and bilateral sagittal split osteotomy (BSSO) procedures from the evidence concerning individual osteotomies. A targeted PubMed update through 24 September 2026, supplemented by reference tracing and publisher and repository records, informed a study-level appraisal. Several comparative studies and meta-analyses report lower measured blood loss with piezoelectric instrumentation, but a non-significant pooled comparison and methodological limitations prevent a uniform estimate of benefit. A reduction in transfusion or major vascular injury has not been established. Neurosensory findings are favorable in some studies but inconsistent across tests and follow-up intervals; time to functional sensory recovery, degree of recovered function, and persistent disturbance are distinct outcomes. Operative-time results also conflict, partly because studies measure different intervals. Operator experience is a possible contributor rather than a demonstrated explanation. Evidence for clinically important improvements in pain, swelling, bone healing, or skeletal stability remains limited. Technical reports support the feasibility of selective or hybrid instrumentation, but comparative superiority of a hybrid workflow has not been established. Current evidence supports cautious, procedure-specific interpretation and further comparative trials rather than a universal replacement of conventional instruments.
Related
- Do video animations and 3-D skull models reduce preoperative anxiety in bimaxillary orthognathic surgery patients? Randomized controlled trial.
- Patient-Reported Outcomes Following Minimally Invasive Versus Conventional Orthognathic Surgery.
- Kinematic Alignment Using Conventional Mechanical-Alignment Instruments with 3D-Printed Tibial Recut Guide Versus Manual Mechanical Alignment in Total Knee Arthroplasty: An IPTW-Adjusted Comparative Cohort Study
- Laminar Airflow vs. Conventional High-Efficiency Particulate Air (HEPA)-Filtered Ventilation in Primary Total Hip and Knee Arthroplasty: A Retrospective Comparative Cohort Study of 1,425 Patients.
- Facial and Dentoalveolar Changes Following Orthodontic Treatment of Bimaxillary Protrusion in Two Sisters
BibTeX
@article{isufi2026piezoelectric,
title = {{Piezoelectric Versus Conventional Osteotomy Instruments in Bimaxillary Orthognathic Surgery: A Narrative Review of Surgical Efficiency, Safety, and Clinical Outcomes}},
author = {Renato Isufi and Aurora Isufi and Ramazan Isufi and Majeed Rana},
journal = {Journal of Clinical Medicine},
year = {2026},
month = oct,
doi = {10.3390/jcm15207818},
url = {https://www.mdpi.com/2077-0383/15/20/7818},
note = {CC BY 4.0},
}
RIS
TY - JOUR
TI - Piezoelectric Versus Conventional Osteotomy Instruments in Bimaxillary Orthognathic Surgery: A Narrative Review of Surgical Efficiency, Safety, and Clinical Outcomes
AU - Renato Isufi
AU - Aurora Isufi
AU - Ramazan Isufi
AU - Majeed Rana
PY - 2026
DA - 2026/10/10
JO - Journal of Clinical Medicine
DO - 10.3390/jcm15207818
UR - https://www.mdpi.com/2077-0383/15/20/7818
AB - Instrument selection in bimaxillary orthognathic surgery must balance cutting efficiency, measured blood loss, and injury to adjacent structures. This narrative review distinguishes the evidence from combined Le Fort I and bilateral sagittal split osteotomy (BSSO) procedures from the evidence concerning individual osteotomies. A targeted PubMed update through 24 September 2026, supplemented by reference tracing and publisher and repository records, informed a study-level appraisal. Several comparative studies and meta-analyses report lower measured blood loss with piezoelectric instrumentation, but a non-significant pooled comparison and methodological limitations prevent a uniform estimate of benefit. A reduction in transfusion or major vascular injury has not been established. Neurosensory findings are favorable in some studies but inconsistent across tests and follow-up intervals; time to functional sensory recovery, degree of recovered function, and persistent disturbance are distinct outcomes. Operative-time results also conflict, partly because studies measure different intervals. Operator experience is a possible contributor rather than a demonstrated explanation. Evidence for clinically important improvements in pain, swelling, bone healing, or skeletal stability remains limited. Technical reports support the feasibility of selective or hybrid instrumentation, but comparative superiority of a hybrid workflow has not been established. Current evidence supports cautious, procedure-specific interpretation and further comparative trials rather than a universal replacement of conventional instruments.
SN - 2077-0383
ER -