A comparative study on the user satisfaction between two different piezoelectric engines

두가지 피에조 엔진의 사용자 만족도 비교

  • Lim, Hyun-Mi (Department of Dentistry, Graduate School, Kyungpook National University) ;
  • Lee, Kyu-Bok (Advanced Dental Device Development Institute, Kyungpook National University) ;
  • Lee, Wan-Sun (Advanced Dental Device Development Institute, Kyungpook National University) ;
  • Choi, So-Young (Department of Oral & Maxillofacial Surgery, School of Dentistry, Kyungpook National University)
  • 임현미 (경북대학교 대학원 치의학과) ;
  • 이규복 (경북대학교 첨단치과의료기기개발연구소) ;
  • 이완선 (경북대학교 첨단치과의료기기개발연구소) ;
  • 최소영 (경북대학교 치과대학 구강악안면외과학교실)
  • Received : 2017.08.04
  • Accepted : 2017.08.21
  • Published : 2017.12.30


Purpose: The aim of this study is to compare the performance of two piezoelectric engine systems by surveying satisfaction from dental clinicians. Materials and Methods: Two piezoelectric systems were evaluated: TRAUS XUS10 (Saeshin), PIEZOSURGERY touch (Mectron). For this study, 20 dentists responded to the 11 questionnaires in which 5 point Likert-type scale was used. The two devices were operated for 10 seconds and measured 5 times to compare the maximum noise values. In heat emission test, the handpiece was operated for 3 minutes and heat was measured at three positions each. Results: TRAUS XUS10 had higher satisfaction level on motor noise (P < 0.05). About function key and handpiece heat generation, PIEZOSURGERY touch showed higher satisfaction (P < 0.05) than TRAUS XUS10. The maximum noise level for each of the devices was confirmed to be 56.6 dB for the TRAUS XUS10 and 56.0 dB for PIEZOSURGERY touch. The two piezoelectric engines satisfied the safety standards with an operation temperature below $41^{\circ}C$ after having been operated for 3 minutes. Conclusion: Except for the function key and handpiece heat emission, TRAUS XUS10 has comparable performance with PIEZOSURGERY touch.


Supported by : Ministry of Trade, Industry and Energy, Daegu Institute for Regional Program Evaluation, Daegu Technopark


  1. Stubinger S, Kuttenberger J, Filippi A, Sader R, Zeilhofer HF. Intraoral piezosurgery: preliminary results of a new technique. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2005;63:1283-7.
  2. Blus C, Szmukler-Moncler S, Salama M, Salama H, Garber D. Sinus bone grafting procedures using ultrasonic bone surgery: 5-year experience. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent 2008;28:221-9.
  3. Robiony M, Polini F, Costa F, Vercellotti T, Politi M. Piezoelectric bone cutting in multipiece maxillary osteotomies. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2004;62:759-61.
  4. Ma L, Stubinger S, Liu XL, Schneider UA, Lang NP. Healing of osteotomy sites applying either piezosurgery or two conventional saw blades: a pilot study in rabbits. Int Orthop 2013;37:1597-603.
  5. Eggers G, Klein J, Blank J, Hassfeld S. Piezosurgery: an ultrasound device for cutting bone and its use and limitations in maxillofacial surgery. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2004;42:451-3.
  6. Labanca M, Azzola F, Vinci R, Rodella LF. Piezoelectric surgery: twenty years of use. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2008;46:265-9.
  7. Seshan H, Konuganti K, Zope S. Piezosurgery in periodontology and oral implantology. J Indian Soc Periodontol 2009;13:155-6.
  8. Vercellotti T, Dellepiane M, Mora R, Salami A. Piezoelectric bone surgery in otosclerosis. Acta Otolaryngol 2007;127:932-7.
  9. Jensen OT, Shulman LB, Block MS, Iacono VJ. Report of the Sinus Consensus Conference of 1996. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1998;13 Suppl:11-45.
  10. Seshan H, Konuganti K, Zope S. Piezosurgery in periodontology and oral implantology. J Indian Soc Periodontol 2009;13:155-6.
  11. Lee DH, Lee KB. The comparative study of user satisfaction on various implant engine system. J Dent Rehabil Appl Sci 2014;30:9-15.
  12. Pearce AI, Richards RG, Milz S, Schneider E, Pearce SG. Animal models for implant biomaterial research in bone: a review. Eur Cell Mater 2007;13:1-10.
  13. An YH, Freidman RJ. Animal models in orthopaedic research. Boca Raton; CRC Press; 1998. p. 39-57.
  14. Buser D, Schenk RK, Steinemann S, Fiorellini JP, Fox CH, Stich H. Influence of surface characteristics on bone integration of titanium implants. A histomorphometric study in miniature pigs. J Biomed Mater Res 1991;25:889-902.
  15. Sun C, Huang G, Christensen FB, Dalstra M, Overgaard S, Bunger C. Mechanical and histological analysis of bone-pedicle screw interface in vivo: titanium versus stainless steel. Chin Med J (Engl) 1999;112:456-60.
  16. Davies AR, Ware JE Jr. Measuring patient satisfaction with dental care. Soc Sci Med A 1981;15:751-60.
  17. IECEE. International Electrotechnical Commission. Available from:' (updated 2017 Aug 14).
  18. Lee JH, Oh JM, Hong Y, Kim S, Paik J, Lee YJ, Lee JB, Lee SD. Design and evaluation of ultrasonic bone surgical instruments for dental application. J Korean Inst Electr Electron Mater Eng 2012;25:990-5.
  19. Kramer FJ, Bornitz M, Zahnert T, Schliephake H. Can piezoelectric ultrasound osteotomies result in serious noise trauma? Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2015;44:1355-61.
  20. Lehto TU, Laurikainen ET, Aitasalo KJ, Pietila TJ, Helenius HY, Johansson R. Hearing of dentists in the long run: a 15-year follow-up study. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol 1989;17:207-11.
  21. Ji DH, Choi MS. Characteristics of noise radiated at dental clinic. J Korean Soc Environ Eng 2009;31:1123-8.
  22. Lee JS, Han YS, Cho YS. The noise level assessment of dental equipment. J Dent Hyg Sci 2015;15;603-11.
  23. Walmsley AD. Potential hazards of the dental ultrasonic descaler. Ultrasound Med Biol 1988;14:15-20.