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

2021 ◽  
Vol 7 ◽  
pp. 6-9
Author(s):  
K. Visale ◽  
V. Manimala ◽  
N. Vidhyasankari ◽  
S. V. Shanmugapriya
Keyword(s):  
Entire Range ◽  
Root Apex ◽  
Central Control ◽  
Impacted Tooth ◽  
Implant Placement ◽  
Root Extraction ◽  
Sinus Lifting ◽  
Clinical Advantage ◽  
Delayed Implant Placement ◽  
Tooth Removal

Magnetic mallet was introduced in dentistry by Bonwill in 1873. It was introduced with the aim of increasing the efficacy of hammered gold fillings. Magnetic mallet is a magnetodynamical handpiece with an ergonomical design. It comprises central control with force adjustment, sterilizable handpiece with different replaceable tips, and pedal control. It comes with an entire range of bone expanders/osteotomes, cutter, and other instruments. It is applicable for procedures such as tooth and root extraction, impacted tooth removal, delayed implant placement, bone manipulating and sinus lifting procedures, root apex resection, removal of crowns, bridges, and implant part. The use of magnetic mallet is said to provide with better clinical advantage.

Socket preservation using xenograft does not impair implant primary stability in sheep: clinical, histological and histomorphometric study

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yaniv Mayer ◽  
Ofir Ginesin ◽  
Hadar Zigdon-Giladi
Keyword(s):  
Bone Biopsy ◽  
Primary Stability ◽  
Insertion Torque ◽  
Socket Preservation ◽  
Histomorphometric Study ◽  
Implant Placement ◽  
High Bone ◽  
Delayed Implant Placement ◽  
Natural Healing

Implant primary stability, which depends mainly on the amount and quality of bone, is important for implant survival. Socket preservation aims to reduce bone volumetric changes following tooth extraction. This animal study aims to examine whether preserving a ridge by using xenograft impairs the primary stability of the implant. Eighteen artificial bone defects were prepared in four sheep (5mmØ and 8mm length).  Defects were randomly grafted with xenografts: Bio-Oss (BO), Bioactive Bone (BB), or left for natural healing (control). After 8 weeks, bone biopsy was harvested and dental implants installed. During installation, peak insertion torque (IT) was measured by hand ratchet, and primary stability by the Osstell method. Histomorphometric analysis showed a higher percentage of new bone formation in the naturally healed defects compared to sites with xenograft (control 68.66 ± 4.5%, BB 48.75 ± 4.34%, BO 50.33 ± 4.0%). Connective tissue portion was higher in the BO and BB groups compared to control (44.25 ± 2.98%, 41 ± 6%, and 31.33 ± 4.5, p<0.05, respectively). Residual grafting material was similar in BO and BB (7 ± 2.44%, 8.66 ± 2.1 %, respectively). Mean IT and ISQ values were not statistically different among the groups. A positive correlation was found between IT and ISQ (r=0.65, p=0.00). In conclusion, previously grafted defects with xenograft did not influence primary stability and implant insertion torque in delayed implant placement. These results may be attributed to a relatively high bone fill of the defect (~50%) two months after grafting.

Minimally Invasive Aesthetic Area Tooth Removal Using Bioextractor® and Immediate Implant Placement with Provisionalization: Case Report

2020 ◽  
Vol 4 (6) ◽  
pp. 31-35
Author(s):  
Sergio Charifker Ribeiro Martins ◽  
Leandro Lecio de Lima Souza ◽  
Karen Christina Soares Tenório ◽  
José Ricardo Mariano ◽  
Ricardo Alberto Heine
Keyword(s):  
Case Report ◽  
Minimally Invasive ◽  
Implant Placement ◽  
Immediate Implant ◽  
Tooth Removal

scholarly journals Simultaneous implant placement with autogenous onlay bone grafts: a systematic review and meta-analysis

2021 ◽  
Vol 7 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Guoqiang Ma ◽  
Chaoan Wu ◽  
Miaoting Shao
Keyword(s):  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Survival Rates ◽  
Bone Grafts ◽  
Implant Survival ◽  
Analysis Model ◽  
Implant Placement ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Delayed Implant Placement ◽  
Onlay Grafts

AbstractSeveral authors have suggested that implants can be placed simultaneously with onlay bone grafts without affecting outcomes. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to answer the following clinical questions: (1) What are the outcomes of implants placed simultaneously with autogenous onlay bone grafts? And (2) is there a difference in outcomes between simultaneous vs delayed placement of implants with autogenous onlay bone grafts? Databases of PubMed, Embase, and Google Scholar were searched up to 15 November 2020. Data on implant survival was extracted from all the included studies (single arm and comparative) to calculate point estimates with 95% confidence intervals (CI) and pooled using the DerSimonian–Laird meta-analysis model. We also compared implant survival rates between the simultaneous and delayed placement of implants with data from comparative studies. Nineteen studies were included. Five of them compared simultaneous and delayed placement of implants. Dividing the studies based on follow-up duration, the pooled survival of implant placed simultaneously with onlay grafts after <2.5 years of follow-up was 93.1% (95% CI 82.6 to 97.4%) and after 2.5–5 years was 86% (95% CI 78.6 to 91.1%). Implant survival was found to be 85.8% (95% CI 79.6 to 90.3%) with iliac crest grafts and 95.7% (95% CI 83.9 to 93.0%) with intra-oral grafts. Our results indicated no statistically significant difference in implant survival between simultaneous and delayed placement (OR 0.43, 95% 0.07, 2.49, I2=59.04%). Data on implant success and bone loss were limited. Data indicates that implants placed simultaneously with autogenous onlay grafts have a survival rate of 93.1% and 86% after a follow-up of <2.5 years and 2.5–5years respectively. A limited number of studies indicate no significant difference in implant survival between the simultaneous and delayed placement of implants with onlay bone grafts. There is a need for randomized controlled trials comparing simultaneous and delayed implant placement to provide robust evidence.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document