| Article ID | Journal | Published Year | Pages | File Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1994782 | Microvascular Research | 2014 | 5 Pages |
•Intravital microscopy is useful in assessing possible periosteal damage.•Piezoelectric devices can be used for both hard-tissue and soft-tissue surgeries.•Postoperative periosteal damage influences the regenerative potential of bone.•Piezoelectric devices cause less periosteal damage than conventional instruments.
IntroductionSubperiosteal preparation using a periosteal elevator leads to disturbances of local periosteal microcirculation. Soft-tissue damage can usually be considerably reduced using piezoelectric technology. For this reason, we investigated the effects of a novel piezoelectric device on local periosteal microcirculation and compared this approach with the conventional preparation of the periosteum using a periosteal elevator.Material and methodsA total of 20 Lewis rats were randomly assigned to one of two groups. Subperiosteal preparation was performed using either a piezoelectric device or a periosteal elevator. Intravital microscopy was performed immediately after the procedure as well as three and eight days postoperatively. Statistical analysis of microcirculatory parameters was performed offline using analysis of variance (ANOVA) on ranks (p < 0.05).ResultsAt all time points investigated, intravital microscopy demonstrated significantly higher levels of periosteal perfusion in the group of rats that underwent piezosurgery than in the group of rats that underwent treatment with a periosteal elevator.ConclusionThe use of a piezoelectric device for subperiosteal preparation is associated with better periosteal microcirculation than the use of a conventional periosteal elevator. As a result, piezoelectric devices can be expected to have a positive effect on bone metabolism.
