Osseodensification is an innovative method of preparing the implant osteotomy using drills that promote bone self-compaction. The main objective of this technique is to promote peri-implant bone densification and compaction of autologous bone and to increase the primary stability of the implant due to the viscoelastic characteristics of the alveolar bone using Densah^® burs in a counterclockwise direction at a speed of 800 to 1500 rpm. The objective of this review is the analysis of the scientific literature regarding the applicability of the osseodensification technique in oral implantology. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis guidelines were used and registered at PROSPERO. The search strategy included electronic databases from 2016 to 2023 and was performed by two independent reviewers. The results demonstrate the advantage of the osseodensification technique in relation to conventional drilling, allowing an increase in the bone density and primary stability of the implant, bone density, and bone–implant contact. The osseodensification technique can be applied in different clinical situations: sub-antral bone grafts, narrow alveolar bone crests, low-density bone areas, and immediate implant placement in post-extraction sockets.

Background/Objective: To ensure that implants are able to support prosthetic rehabilitation, a stable and functional union between the bone and the implant surface is crucial to its stability and success. To increase bone volume and density and excel bone-implant contact, a novel drilling method, called osseodensification (OD), was performed. To assess the effectiveness of the osseodensification drilling protocol versus the conventional surgical technique on implant stability. Methods: Bone Level Tapered Straumann implants were placed side-by-side with both OD and subtractive conventional drilling (SD) in 90 patients from CESPU—Famalicão clinical unit. IT was measured using a manual torque wrench, and the Implant stability quotient (ISQ) value was registered using the Osstell^® IDX. Results: According to the multifactorial ANOVA, there were statistically significant differences in the mean IT values due to the arch only (F(1.270) = 4.702, p-value = 0.031 < 0.05). Regarding the length of the implant, there were statistically significant differences in the mean IT in the OD group (p = 0.041), with significantly lower mean IT values for the Regular implants compared to the Long. With respect to the arch, the analyses of the overall ISQ values showed an upward trend in both groups in the maxilla and mandible. High levels of IT also showed high ISQ values, which represent good indicators of primary stability. Conclusions: OD does not have a negative influence on osseointegration compared to conventional subtractive osteotomy.