Usefulness of the Magnetodynamic Mallet in Tooth Extraction: A Case Series

<b>Background:</b> Tooth extraction techniques have been refined over the years in order to be less traumatic and to better preserve alveolar bone. A recently introduced extraction method involves the use of the Magnetic Mallet<sup>®</sup>, which allows clinicians to be more...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Domenico Baldi, Francesca Baldi, Federica Giordano, Luisa De Giorgis, Francesco Bagnasco, Andrea Tancredi Lugas, Maria Menini, Jacopo Colombo
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: MDPI AG 2024-11-01
Series:Applied Sciences
Subjects:
Online Access:https://www.mdpi.com/2076-3417/14/22/10623
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
_version_ 1850149876746158080
author Domenico Baldi
Francesca Baldi
Federica Giordano
Luisa De Giorgis
Francesco Bagnasco
Andrea Tancredi Lugas
Maria Menini
Jacopo Colombo
author_facet Domenico Baldi
Francesca Baldi
Federica Giordano
Luisa De Giorgis
Francesco Bagnasco
Andrea Tancredi Lugas
Maria Menini
Jacopo Colombo
author_sort Domenico Baldi
collection DOAJ
description <b>Background:</b> Tooth extraction techniques have been refined over the years in order to be less traumatic and to better preserve alveolar bone. A recently introduced extraction method involves the use of the Magnetic Mallet<sup>®</sup>, which allows clinicians to be more precise and perform extractions faster. Moreover, the instrument enables the procedure to be less traumatic for patients. The aim of the present study was to clinically evaluate whether extractions performed using the Magnetic Mallet<sup>®</sup> can lead to less buccolingual bone resorption. <b>Methods:</b> Between February 2023 and June 2023, nine patients with an average age of 62 years underwent 29 extractions using the Magnetic Mallet<sup>®</sup>. Sectorial CBCTs were performed in order to measure buccolingual bone thickness at time 0 (T0, before extraction) and 3 months after extraction (T3M). All the extractions were performed by two different expert operators exclusively using the Magnetic Mallet<sup>®</sup>. For statistical analysis, a two-sample <i>t</i>-test was performed to determine the difference between the measurements taken at T0 and those taken at T3M in the 29 dental elements and the difference in bone loss between the surgeries conducted by the two clinicians. <b>Results:</b> A total of 22 teeth were extracted in the upper jaw and 7 in the lower jaw. The average degree of mobility was 1. The average degree of force impressed by the instrument to extract the teeth was 2, while the average frequency of blows administered was 7. The average time taken for the extractions was 3½ min. After 3 months, the mean buccolingual bone resorption was 1.54 mm (SD: ±). The difference in buccolingual bone thickness between T0 and T3 was significant at an alpha significance level of 0.01. No difference in bone resorption was found between the surgeries conducted by the two clinicians. <b>Conclusions:</b> The use of the Magnetic Mallet<sup>®</sup> results in bone loss in the buccolingual direction comparable with existing data in the literature on healing the post-extraction socket. This tool seems to be predictable in producing the same results between different operators.
format Article
id doaj-art-afbf47ccb3f54bb4a5a52ea28dc7bdd8
institution OA Journals
issn 2076-3417
language English
publishDate 2024-11-01
publisher MDPI AG
record_format Article
series Applied Sciences
spelling doaj-art-afbf47ccb3f54bb4a5a52ea28dc7bdd82025-08-20T02:26:45ZengMDPI AGApplied Sciences2076-34172024-11-0114221062310.3390/app142210623Usefulness of the Magnetodynamic Mallet in Tooth Extraction: A Case SeriesDomenico Baldi0Francesca Baldi1Federica Giordano2Luisa De Giorgis3Francesco Bagnasco4Andrea Tancredi Lugas5Maria Menini6Jacopo Colombo7Division of Implant Prosthodontics, Department of Surgical Sciences (DISC), University of Genova, Largo R. Benzi 10, 16132 Genoa, ItalyDivision of Implant Prosthodontics, Department of Surgical Sciences (DISC), University of Genova, Largo R. Benzi 10, 16132 Genoa, ItalyDivision of Implant Prosthodontics, Department of Surgical Sciences (DISC), University of Genova, Largo R. Benzi 10, 16132 Genoa, ItalyDivision of Implant Prosthodontics, Department of Surgical Sciences (DISC), University of Genova, Largo R. Benzi 10, 16132 Genoa, ItalyDivision of Implant Prosthodontics, Department of Surgical Sciences (DISC), University of Genova, Largo R. Benzi 10, 16132 Genoa, ItalySolid and Fluid Biomechanics Group, PolitoBIOMed Lab, Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering, Turin Polytechnic School, 10129 Turin, ItalyDivision of Implant Prosthodontics, Department of Surgical Sciences (DISC), University of Genova, Largo R. Benzi 10, 16132 Genoa, ItalyDivision of Implant Prosthodontics, Department of Surgical Sciences (DISC), University of Genova, Largo R. Benzi 10, 16132 Genoa, Italy<b>Background:</b> Tooth extraction techniques have been refined over the years in order to be less traumatic and to better preserve alveolar bone. A recently introduced extraction method involves the use of the Magnetic Mallet<sup>®</sup>, which allows clinicians to be more precise and perform extractions faster. Moreover, the instrument enables the procedure to be less traumatic for patients. The aim of the present study was to clinically evaluate whether extractions performed using the Magnetic Mallet<sup>®</sup> can lead to less buccolingual bone resorption. <b>Methods:</b> Between February 2023 and June 2023, nine patients with an average age of 62 years underwent 29 extractions using the Magnetic Mallet<sup>®</sup>. Sectorial CBCTs were performed in order to measure buccolingual bone thickness at time 0 (T0, before extraction) and 3 months after extraction (T3M). All the extractions were performed by two different expert operators exclusively using the Magnetic Mallet<sup>®</sup>. For statistical analysis, a two-sample <i>t</i>-test was performed to determine the difference between the measurements taken at T0 and those taken at T3M in the 29 dental elements and the difference in bone loss between the surgeries conducted by the two clinicians. <b>Results:</b> A total of 22 teeth were extracted in the upper jaw and 7 in the lower jaw. The average degree of mobility was 1. The average degree of force impressed by the instrument to extract the teeth was 2, while the average frequency of blows administered was 7. The average time taken for the extractions was 3½ min. After 3 months, the mean buccolingual bone resorption was 1.54 mm (SD: ±). The difference in buccolingual bone thickness between T0 and T3 was significant at an alpha significance level of 0.01. No difference in bone resorption was found between the surgeries conducted by the two clinicians. <b>Conclusions:</b> The use of the Magnetic Mallet<sup>®</sup> results in bone loss in the buccolingual direction comparable with existing data in the literature on healing the post-extraction socket. This tool seems to be predictable in producing the same results between different operators.https://www.mdpi.com/2076-3417/14/22/10623tooth extractionsmagnetodynamic surgerysocket preservationoral surgerybone resorption
spellingShingle Domenico Baldi
Francesca Baldi
Federica Giordano
Luisa De Giorgis
Francesco Bagnasco
Andrea Tancredi Lugas
Maria Menini
Jacopo Colombo
Usefulness of the Magnetodynamic Mallet in Tooth Extraction: A Case Series
Applied Sciences
tooth extractions
magnetodynamic surgery
socket preservation
oral surgery
bone resorption
title Usefulness of the Magnetodynamic Mallet in Tooth Extraction: A Case Series
title_full Usefulness of the Magnetodynamic Mallet in Tooth Extraction: A Case Series
title_fullStr Usefulness of the Magnetodynamic Mallet in Tooth Extraction: A Case Series
title_full_unstemmed Usefulness of the Magnetodynamic Mallet in Tooth Extraction: A Case Series
title_short Usefulness of the Magnetodynamic Mallet in Tooth Extraction: A Case Series
title_sort usefulness of the magnetodynamic mallet in tooth extraction a case series
topic tooth extractions
magnetodynamic surgery
socket preservation
oral surgery
bone resorption
url https://www.mdpi.com/2076-3417/14/22/10623
work_keys_str_mv AT domenicobaldi usefulnessofthemagnetodynamicmalletintoothextractionacaseseries
AT francescabaldi usefulnessofthemagnetodynamicmalletintoothextractionacaseseries
AT federicagiordano usefulnessofthemagnetodynamicmalletintoothextractionacaseseries
AT luisadegiorgis usefulnessofthemagnetodynamicmalletintoothextractionacaseseries
AT francescobagnasco usefulnessofthemagnetodynamicmalletintoothextractionacaseseries
AT andreatancredilugas usefulnessofthemagnetodynamicmalletintoothextractionacaseseries
AT mariamenini usefulnessofthemagnetodynamicmalletintoothextractionacaseseries
AT jacopocolombo usefulnessofthemagnetodynamicmalletintoothextractionacaseseries