Magnetic Mallet Vs Conventional Drilling in D4 Posterior Maxilla

NCT07424820 | Enrolling By Invitation DMC

• 1 other identifier: UoM. dent. 26/1001
• Study Type: interventional
• Target: 30
• Locations: 1 country
• Sites: 1

Brief Summary

The goal of this clinical trial is to evaluate whether the magnetic mallet technique improves primary implant stability and clinical outcomes compared with conventional drilling during dental implant placement in the posterior maxilla with soft bone quality. The main questions it aims to answer are: Does the magnetic mallet technique result in higher primary implant stability compared with conventional drilling? Does the magnetic mallet technique reduce surgical trauma and related complications compared with conventional drilling? Researchers will compare the magnetic mallet technique with conventional drilling to determine differences in implant stability, bone response, and clinical outcomes. Participants will: Undergo dental implant placement using either the magnetic mallet technique or conventional drilling. Be clinically and radiographically evaluated for implant stability and postoperative outcomes during follow-up

Conditions

Alveolar Bone Loss; Dental Implant; Osseodensification Drilling Technique

Keywords

Visual Analog Scale; CBCT; Maxillary bone; osseointegration

Outcome Measures

Primary Outcomes (1)

• implant stability

  Implant stability was assessed using Implant Stability Quotient (ISQ) values , ISQ \> 70: High stability. ISQ 60-69: Moderate stability. ISQ \< 60: Low stability.

  immediately after implant placement and at 3 months postoperatively

Secondary Outcomes (1)

• postoperative pain

  7 days after surgery

Study Arms (2)

Conventional Drilling Group

ACTIVE COMPARATOR

participants in this arm will undergo implant site preparation using the conventional drilling osteotomy technique according to standard clinical protocols before dental implant placement.

Device: Conventional drilling osteotomy

Magnetic Mallet Group

EXPERIMENTAL

participants in this arm will undergo implant site preparation using the magnetic mallet osteotomy technique, which prepares the implant site through controlled bone condensation prior to dental implant placement.

Device: Magnetic mallet osteotomy

Interventions

Conventional drilling osteotomy DEVICE

implant site preparation using sequential rotary drills according to standard protocol.

Conventional Drilling Group

Magnetic mallet osteotomy DEVICE

Implant site preparation using controlled electromagnetic impulses for bone condensation.

Magnetic Mallet Group

Eligibility Criteria

• Age: 20 Years - 60 Years
• Sex: all
• Healthy Volunteers: Yes
• Age Groups: Adult (18-64)

You may qualify if:

• healed edentulous posterior maxilla
• residual vertical bone height ≥ 11 mm, allowing implant placement without sinus augmentation
• bone quality classified as Type IV (D4) according to the Lekholm and Zarb classification

Sponsors & Collaborators

• University of Mosul: lead

Study Sites (1)

University of Mosul/ College of Dentistry

Mosul, Mosul, +964, Iraq

Location

Related Publications (17)

• Agha RA, Mathew G, Rashid R, Kerwan A, Al-Jabir A, Sohrabi C, Franchi T, Nicola M, Agha M. Transparency in the reporting of artificial intelligence-the TITAN guideline. Premier Journal of Science. 2025;10:100082.

  RESULT

• Cappare P, Vinci R, Di Stefano DA, Traini T, Pantaleo G, Gherlone EF, Gastaldi G. Correlation between Initial BIC and the Insertion Torque/Depth Integral Recorded with an Instantaneous Torque-Measuring Implant Motor: An in vivo Study. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2015 Oct;17 Suppl 2:e613-20. doi: 10.1111/cid.12294. Epub 2015 Apr 15.

  PMID: 25876078 RESULT

• Crespi R, Cappare 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 Jun;16(3):374-82. doi: 10.1111/j.1708-8208.2012.00485.x. Epub 2012 Aug 15.

  PMID: 22897742 RESULT

• Menchini-Fabris GB, Toti P, Crespi G, Covani U, Crespi R. Distal Displacement of Maxillary Sinus Anterior Wall Versus Conventional Sinus Lift with Lateral Access: A 3-Year Retrospective Computerized Tomography Study. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2020 Oct 1;17(19):7199. doi: 10.3390/ijerph17197199.

  PMID: 33019711 RESULT

• Crespi R, Cappare P, Gherlone EF. Electrical mallet in implants placed in fresh extraction sockets with simultaneous osteotome sinus floor elevation. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2013 May-Jun;28(3):869-74. doi: 10.11607/jomi.2679.

  PMID: 23748321 RESULT

• 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 Jan 14;12(1):108. doi: 10.3390/jpm12010108.

  PMID: 35055423 RESULT

• Summers RB. A new concept in maxillary implant surgery: the osteotome technique. Compendium. 1994 Feb;15(2):152, 154-6, 158 passim; quiz 162.

  PMID: 8055503 RESULT

• Giudice A, Bennardo F, Antonelli A, Barone S, Wagner F, Fortunato L, Traxler H. Influence of clinician's skill on primary implant stability with conventional and piezoelectric preparation techniques: an ex-vivo study. J Biol Regul Homeost Agents. 2020 Mar-Apr;34(2):739-745. doi: 10.23812/20-96-L-53. No abstract available.

  PMID: 32475099 RESULT

• Javed F, Ahmed HB, Crespi R, Romanos GE. Role of primary stability for successful osseointegration of dental implants: Factors of influence and evaluation. Interv Med Appl Sci. 2013 Dec;5(4):162-7. doi: 10.1556/IMAS.5.2013.4.3. Epub 2013 Dec 20.

  PMID: 24381734 RESULT

• Misch CE. Bone density: a key determinant for clinical success. In: Contemporary Implant Dentistry. 2nd ed. St. Louis: Mosby; 1999. p. 109-118.

  RESULT

• Sheikh Ibrahim A, Jaafo MH. A Comparison of Different Implant Site Preparation Techniques in Low-Density Bone: An Ex-Vivo Study. Cureus. 2024 Sep 27;16(9):e70318. doi: 10.7759/cureus.70318. eCollection 2024 Sep.

  PMID: 39463674 RESULT

• Hindi AR, Bede SY. The effect of osseodensification on implant stability and bone density: A prospective observational study. J Clin Exp Dent. 2020 May 1;12(5):e474-e478. doi: 10.4317/jced.56727. eCollection 2020 May.

  PMID: 32509230 RESULT

• 5. Lekholm U, Zarb GA. Patient selection and preparation. In: Brånemark PI, Zarb GA, Albrektsson T, editors. Osseointegration in Clinical Dentistry. Chicago: Quintessence Publishing Co; 1985. p. 199-209.

  RESULT

• Negidah TB, shehab aF, Hatem H, Fanous SZ, azab m. Implant Site Preparation Using Conventional Drilling Technique Versus Magnetic Malleting Technique (Randomized Clinical Study).. Future Dental Journal. 2024; 9(2):87-92. doi: https://doi.org/10.54623/fdj.9023. This

  RESULT

• Pjetursson BE, Tan K, Lang NP, Bragger U, Egger M, Zwahlen M. A systematic review of the survival and complication rates of fixed partial dentures (FPDs) after an observation period of at least 5 years. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2004 Dec;15(6):625-42. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0501.2004.01117.x.

  PMID: 15533124 RESULT

• Walter P, Pirc M, Ioannidis A, Husler J, Jung RE, Hammerle CHF, Thoma DS. Randomized controlled clinical study comparing two types of two-piece dental implants supporting fixed restorations-Results at 8 years of loading. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2022 Mar;33(3):333-341. doi: 10.1111/clr.13893. Epub 2022 Feb 3.

  PMID: 35060200 RESULT

• Adell R, Lekholm U, Rockler B, Branemark PI. A 15-year study of osseointegrated implants in the treatment of the edentulous jaw. Int J Oral Surg. 1981 Dec;10(6):387-416. doi: 10.1016/s0300-9785(81)80077-4.

  PMID: 6809663 RESULT

MeSH Terms

Conditions

Alveolar Bone Loss

Condition Hierarchy (Ancestors)

Bone Resorption; Bone Diseases; Musculoskeletal Diseases; Periodontal Atrophy; Periodontal Diseases; Mouth Diseases; Stomatognathic Diseases

Study Officials

• Alyaa I. Naser, BDS, MSc. Ph.D., assist. Prof.

  Department of OMFS, College of Dentistry, University of Mosul, Nineveh, Iraq

  PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR

• Zaid Adel Alshamaa, Specialized Dentist BDS MSc

  . International trainer in laser dentistry, former lecturer in college of dentistry

  STUDY CHAIR

Study Design

• Study Type: interventional
• Phase: not applicable
• Allocation: RANDOMIZED
• Masking: SINGLE
• Who Masked: OUTCOMES ASSESSOR
• Masking Details: The outcome assessor is blinded to the implant site preparation technique used in each participant to minimize assessment bias. Due to the nature of the surgical interventions, masking of the surgeon and participants is not feasible.
• Purpose: TREATMENT
• Intervention Model: PARALLEL
• Sponsor Type: OTHER
• Responsible Party: PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR
• PI Title: Assistant Professor Dr Alyaa Ismael Naser

Model Details: This is a parallel-group clinical trial in which participants are randomly assigned to one of two intervention arms: implant site preparation using either conventional drilling osteotomy or magnetic mallet osteotomy. Each participant receives only one intervention, and outcomes are compared between the two groups.

Study Record Dates

• First Submitted: February 14, 2026
• First Posted: February 20, 2026
• Study Start: November 1, 2025
• Primary Completion: May 1, 2026
• Study Completion (Estimated): July 1, 2026
• Last Updated: February 27, 2026

Record last verified: 2026-02

Data Sharing

• IPD Sharing: Will share
• Shared Documents: STUDY PROTOCOL, SAP
• Time Frame: start date After publication of the primary study results, end date 5 years after publication
• Access Criteria: de-identified individual participant data and supporting documents, including the study protocol and statistical analysis plan, will be available to qualified researchers for academic and research purposes only. Access will be granted upon reasonable request to the corresponding author, following review and approval of the request and completion of a data use agreement

Locations

IR (1)