Article Sidebar

PDF (Tiếng Việt)
Published: 2026-08-04
Abstract Views: 0
Views PDF (Tiếng Việt): 0
DOI: https://doi.org/10.52852/tcncyh.v204i7.5527
Issue
Vol. 204 No. 7 (2026)
Section
Các bài báo
How to Cite
Luật, N. Đình, Vân, N. T. T., Hà, N. T. K., Huy, L. G., & Khuê, T. N. (2026). Clinical outcomes of implant placement in the posterior maxilla using a magnetic mallet system versus conventional drilling: A non-randomized controlled interventional study . Journal of Medical Research, 204(7), 68-77. https://doi.org/10.52852/tcncyh.v204i7.5527

Clinical outcomes of implant placement in the posterior maxilla using a magnetic mallet system versus conventional drilling: A non-randomized controlled interventional study

Nguyen Dinh Luat, Nguyen Thi Thao Van, Nguyen Thi Khanh Ha, Ly Gia Huy, Truong Nhut Khue

Main Article Content

Abstract

This study aimed to evaluate and compare the short-term outcomes of the magnetic mallet system and conventional drilling in posterior maxillary implant placement. A non-randomized controlled interventional study was conducted on 38 patients with 46 implants at Ho Chi Minh City Odonto-Stomatology Hospital from July 2025 to April 2026. The magnetic mallet group had a higher rate of achieving insertion torque ≥ 35 Ncm (91.3% vs. 60.9%, p = 0.016) and lower postoperative pain levels (p = 0.001 and p = 0.005), while bone preparation time was comparable between both groups (6.2 ± 1.1 vs. 6.0 ± 1.2 minutes, p = 0.542). Implant stability was significantly higher immediately after placement and at 3 months (p ≤ 0.001), but no longer differed at 6 months (p = 0.215). Parameters related to marginal bone loss, peri-implant soft tissue condition, implant survival rate (100% vs. 95.7%), and the proportion of cases achieving good overall outcomes (87.0% vs. 73.9%) indicated favorable and comparable clinical performance between the two approaches (p > 0.05). Overall, within the short-term follow-up period, the magnetic mallet system appears to be a promising adjunct for posterior maxillary implant placement, offering enhanced primary stability and reduced postoperative pain while maintaining stable healing outcomes.

Article Details

Keywords

Implant placement, posterior maxilla, magnetic mallet system, conventional drilling system

References

1. Misch CE. Density of bone: effect on treatment plans, surgical approach, healing, and progressive bone loading. Int J Oral Implantol. 1990; 6(2): 23-31.
2. Marković A, Calasan D, Colić S, Stojčev-Stajčić L, Janjić B, Mišić T. Implant stability in posterior maxilla: bone-condensing versus bone-drilling: a clinical study. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod. 2011; 112(5): 557-563. doi: 10.1016/j.tripleo.2010.11.010.
3. Moon SH, Um HS, Lee JK, Chang BS, Lee MK. The effect of implant shape and bone preparation on primary stability. J Periodontal Implant Sci. 2010; 40(5): 239-243. doi: 10.5051/jpis.2010.40.5.239.
4. Möhlhenrich SC, Modabber A, Steiner T, Mitchell DA, Hölzle F. Heat generation and drill wear during dental implant site preparation: systematic review. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2015; 53(8): 679-689. doi: 10.1016/j.bjoms.2015.05.004.
5. Bennardo F, Barone S, Vocaturo C, Nucci L, Antonelli A, Giudice A. Usefulness of magnetic mallet in oral surgery and implantology: a systematic review. J Pers Med. 2022; 12(1): 108. doi: 10.3390/jpm12010108.
6. Crespi R, Capparè P, Gherlone E. A comparison of manual and electrical mallet in maxillary bone condensing for immediately loaded implants: a randomized study. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2014; 16(3): 374-382. doi: 10.1111/j.1708-8208.2012.00485.x.
7. Bevilacqua L, De Angelis L, Torelli L, Scarano A, Gronelli G, Maglione M. Retrospective observational study on implant site preparation using magnetodynamic surgery vs. piezoelectric and traditional surgery. J Clin Med. 2025; 14(24): 8841. doi: 10.3390/jcm14248841.
8. Papaspyridakos P, Chen CJ, Singh M, Weber HP, Gallucci GO. Success criteria in implant dentistry: a systematic review. J Dent Res. 2012; 91(3): 242-248. doi: 10.1177/0022034511431252.
9. Karthik K, Sivakumar, Sivaraj, Thangaswamy V. Evaluation of implant success: a review of past and present concepts. J Pharm Bioallied Sci. 2013; 5(Suppl 1): 117-119. doi: 10.4103/0975-7406.113310.
10. Antonelli A, Barone S, Attanasio F, et al. Effect of implant macro-design and magnetodynamic surgical preparation on primary implant stability: an in vitro investigation. Dent J (Basel). 2023; 11(10): 227. doi: 10.3390/dj11100227.
11. Dura Haddad C, Andreatti L, Zelezetsky I, et al. Primary stability of implants inserted into polyurethane blocks: micro-CT and analysis in vitro. Bioengineering (Basel). 2024;11(4):383. doi: 10.3390/bioengineering11040383.
12. Hindi AR, Bede SY. The effect of osseodensification on implant stability and bone density: A prospective observational study. J Clin Exp Dent. 2020; 12(5): 474-478. doi: 10.4317/jced.56727.
13. Crespi R, Capparè P, Gherlone E. Electrical mallet provides essential advantages in maxillary bone condensing. A prospective clinical study. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2013; 15(6): 874-882. doi: 10.1111/j.1708-8208.2011.00432.x.
14. Raghavendra S, Wood MC, Taylor TD. Early wound healing around endosseous implants: a review of the literature. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2005; 20(3): 425-431.
15. Berberi AN, Sabbagh JM, Aboushelib MN, Noujeim ZF, Salameh ZA. A 5-year comparison of marginal bone level following immediate loading of single-tooth implants placed in healed alveolar ridges and extraction sockets in the maxilla. Front Physiol. 2014; 5:29. doi: 10.3389/fphys.2014.00029.
16. Schierano G, Baldi D, Peirone B, et al. Biomolecular, histological, clinical, and radiological analyses of dental implant bone sites prepared using magnetic mallet technology: a pilot study in animals. Materials (Basel). 2021; 14(22): 6945. doi: 10.3390/ma14226945.