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.

This pilot split-mouth study aimed to evaluate and compare early postoperative discomfort and wound healing outcomes in post-extraction sockets after dental extraction performed with a Magnetic Mallet (MM), piezosurgery, and conventional instruments (EudraCT 2022-003135-25). Twenty-two patients requiring the extraction of three non-adjacent teeth were included. Each tooth was randomly assigned to a specific treatment (control, MM, or piezosurgery). Outcome measures were the severity of symptoms after surgery, wound healing assessed at the 10-days follow-up visit, and the time taken to complete each procedure (excluding suturing). Two-way ANOVA and Tukey’s multiple comparisons tests were performed to evaluate eventual differences between groups. There were no statistically significant differences between the compared methods in postoperative pain and healing, and no additional complications were reported. MM required significantly less time to perform a tooth extraction, followed by conventional instruments and piezosurgery, in increasing order (p < 0.05). Overall, the present findings suggest the use of MM and piezosurgery as valid options for dental extractions. Further randomized controlled studies are needed to confirm and extend this study’s results, facilitating the selection of the optimal method for an individual patient depending on the patient’s needs and preferences.

Objectives: The study’s objective was to evaluate the accuracy of dynamic computer-assisted surgical implant placement systems during practical training on fresh defrozen cephali. Methods: Three defrozen cephali with terminal dentition received a total of 26 implants (15 4.3 × 13 mm and 11 4.3 × 13 mm, Nobel Biocare Service AG (Zrich-Flughafen Switzerland)) following a standardized protocol: a digital scanning and planning protocol followed by dynamic navigation surgery (X-Guide, X-Nav Technologies, LLC, Lansdale, PA, USA). All surgical interventions were performed by two surgeons: a senior oral surgeon (OE) with more than 5 years of implant dentistry experience and a non-experienced surgeon (NE). Results: Different linear and angular measurements (i.e., deviation shoulder point; deviation tip point; depth deviation shoulder point; depth deviation tip point; B/L and M/D angular deviations) were calculated in duplicate to estimate the discrepancy of the virtual digital planning with respect to the real clinical scenario. The differences between the two operators were also explored. The results of the bivariate analysis detected clinical negligible differences between the operators, without any statistically significant differences for all investigated parameters (p > 0.05). Conclusions: The preliminary positive findings of this pilot study suggest that the investigated dynamic navigation system could be a viable and safe technique for implant surgery and may offer additional safety benefits to non-experienced operators, despite the required learning.

Objectives: To evaluate the accuracy of dynamic computer-assisted surgical implant placement systems during a practical training on fresh defrozen cephali. Methods: Three defrozen cephali with terminal dentition recieved a total of 26 implants (15 4.3x13mm & 11 4.3x13mm, Nobel Biocare) following a standardized protocol: a digital scanning and planning protocol followed by dynamic navigation surgery (X-Guide, X-Nav Technologies). All surgical interventions were performed by two surgeons: a senior oral surgeon (OE) with more than 5 years of implant dentistry experience and a non-experienced surgeon (NE). Results: Different linear and angular measurements (i.e., deviation shoulder point; deviation tip point; depth deviation shoulder point; depth deviation tip point; B/L and M/D angular deviations) were calculated in duplicate to estimate the discrepanacy of the virutal digital planning respect to the real clinical scenario. Differences between the two operators were also explored. The results of the bivariate analysis detected clinical negligeble differences between operators, without any statistically significand differences for all investigated parameters (p>0.05). Conclusions: The preliminary positive findings of this pilot study suggest that the investigated dynaminc navigation system could be a viable and safe technique for implant surgery and may offer additional safly benefits to not-experienced operators, despite the required learning.