Magnetic mallets – A stroke of luck in implantology: A review

Visale, K.; Manimala, V.; Vidhyasankari, N.; Shanmugapriya, S. V.

doi:10.25259/jade_5_2021

Cited by 3 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 3 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The following four force modes are available: 75, 90, 130, and 260 daN. The time of impact is 80 µs [7]. The primary advantage of the MM is that the velocity is increased, due to the application of more forces using dynamic-magnetic propulsion, as compared to manual instruments.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Primary Stability of Implants Inserted into Polyurethane Blocks: Micro-CT and Analysis In Vitro

Dura Haddad,

Andreatti,

Zelezetsky

et al. 2024

Bioengineering

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The approach employed for the site preparation of the dental implant is a variable factor that affects the implant’s primary stability and its ability to integrate with the surrounding bone. The main objective of this in vitro study is to evaluate the influence of different techniques used to prepare the implant site on the primary stability of the implant in two different densities of artificial bone. Materials and Methods: A total of 150 implant sites were prepared in rigid polyurethane blocks to simulate two distinct bone densities of 15 pounds per cubic foot (PCF) and 30 PCF, with a 1-mm-thick simulated cortex. The implant sites were equally distributed among piezoelectric surgery (PES), traditional drills (TD), and black ruby magnetic mallet inserts (MM). Two methods have been employed to evaluate the implant’s primary stability, Osstell and micro-tomography. Results: In the present study, we observed significant variations in the implant stability quotient (ISQ) values. More precisely, our findings indicate that the ISQ values were generally higher for 30 PCF compared to 15 PCF. In terms of the preparation technique, PES exhibited the greatest ISQ values, followed by MM, and finally TD. These findings corresponded for both bone densities of 30 PCF (PES 75.6 ± 1.73, MM 69.8 ± 1.91, and TD 65.8 ± 1.91) and 15 PCF (PES 72.3 ± 1.63, MM 62.4 ± 1.77, and TD 60.6 ± 1.81). By utilizing Micro-CT scans, we were able to determine the ratio of the implant occupation to the preparation site. Furthermore, we could calculate the maximum distance between the implant and the wall of the preparation site. The findings demonstrated that PES had a higher ratio of implant to preparation site occupation, followed by TD, and then the MM, at a bone density of 30 PCF (PES 96 ± 1.95, TD 94 ± 1.88, and MM 90.3 ± 2.11). Nevertheless, there were no statistically significant differences in the occupation ratio among these three approaches in the bone density of 15 PCF (PES 89.6 ± 1.22, TD 90 ± 1.31, and MM 88.4 ± 1.17). Regarding the maximum gap between the implant and the site preparation, the smallest gaps were seen when TD were used, followed by MM, and finally by PES, either in a bone density 15 PCF (PES 318 ± 21, TD 238 ± 17, and MM 301 ± 20 μm) or in a bone density 30 PCF (PES 299 ± 20, TD 221 ± 16, and MM 281 ± 19 μm). A statistical analysis using ANOVA revealed these differences to be significant, with p-values of < 0.05. Conclusion: The outcomes of this study indicate that employing the PES technique and osteo-densification with MM during implant insertion may enhance the primary stability and increase the possibility of early implant loading.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Primary Stability of Implants Inserted into Polyurethane Blocks: Micro-CT and Analysis In Vitro

Dura Haddad,

Andreatti,

Zelezetsky

et al. 2024

Bioengineering

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Over the years this hammer has been modified and improved in order to make the most of its qualities. It is a device that allows an high control and stability of the applied forces, allowing to perform procedures that are as safe as possible for the patient and the surgeon himself [2][3]. Magnetodynamic technology exploits the physical principles of electromagnetism to be able to apply controlled forces on a body, in order to minimize the impact time [4].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Use of the magnet mallet in a case of extraction and post-extraction implant site preparation, in combination with regenerative therapy on hypertensive patient: a case report and literature review

Oddi

2023

ADS

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives: over the years a device has been developed, the Magnetic Mallet, which allows a very high control and stability of the applied forces, able to perform procedures that were the safest possible for the patient and the surgeon himself. The handpiece has been designed so that different shock waves are emitted according to the type of surgery, with the possibility of inserting different inserts according to the technique / procedure that is being applied. The Magnetic Mallet can be used in different surgical procedures; Dental extractions, implant placement, implant site preparation (osseodensification), maxillary sinus lift procedures or crestal expansion procedures.

show abstract

Usefulness of Magnetic Mallet in Oral Surgery and Implantology: A Systematic Review

Bennardo

Barone

Vocaturo

et al. 2022

JPM

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This systematic review aimed to answer the question: “Is the use of magnetic mallet effective in oral and implant surgery procedures in terms of tissue healing, surgery outcome, and complication rate compared to traditional instruments?” A literature search of PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science databases (articles published until 1 October 2021) was conducted, in accordance with the PRISMA statement, using the keywords “magnetic mallet”, “electric mallet”, “oral surgery”, “implantology”, and “dental implant”. Of 252 articles, 14 were included in the review (3 for teeth extraction, and 11 for implant dentistry). Out of a total of 619 dental extractions (256 patients) performed with the magnetic mallet (MM), no complications were reported. Implants inserted totaled 880 (525 patients): 640 in the MM groups (382), and 240 in control groups (133). The survival rate of implants was 98.9% in the MM groups, and 95.42% in the control groups. Seven patients experienced benign paroxysmal positional vertigo after implant surgery, all in control groups. Results are not sufficient to establish the effectiveness of MM in oral and implant surgery procedures. Randomized controlled trials with a large sample size are needed.

show abstract

Magnetic mallets – A stroke of luck in implantology: A review

Cited by 3 publications

References 3 publications

Primary Stability of Implants Inserted into Polyurethane Blocks: Micro-CT and Analysis In Vitro

Primary Stability of Implants Inserted into Polyurethane Blocks: Micro-CT and Analysis In Vitro

Use of the magnet mallet in a case of extraction and post-extraction implant site preparation, in combination with regenerative therapy on hypertensive patient: a case report and literature review

Usefulness of Magnetic Mallet in Oral Surgery and Implantology: A Systematic Review

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About