ArticleDentistry journal2023
Comparison between Magneto-Dynamic, Piezoelectric, and Conventional Surgery for Dental Extractions: A Pilot Study.
Article in Dentistry journal, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
9 citing papers in PubMed, 16 citations in OpenAlex.
- Piezosurgery-assisted protocol for impacted mandibular third molar removal with 3D facial swelling analysis: a randomized split-mouth clinical trial on post-surgical sequelae.Clinical oral investigations · 2026Trial
- Retrospective Observational Study on Implant Site Preparation Using Magnetodynamic Surgery vs. Piezoelectric and Traditional Surgery.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
- Clinical Effectiveness of Surgical Marginal Resection with Piezoelectric Device on Bisphosphonate-Related Osteonecrosis of the Jaws: A Retrospective Study.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
- Piezosurgery in Third Molar Extractions: A Systematic Review.Journal of personalized medicine · 2024Review
- Article
- Computer-Guided Surgery Can Avoid Prophylactic Endodontic Treatment in Autologous Tooth Transplantation: A 5-Year Follow-Up Case Report.Dentistry journal · 2024Article
- The current applications of nano and biomaterials in drug delivery of dental implant.BMC oral health · 2024Review
- Subgingival Use of Air-Polishing Powders: Status of Knowledge: A Systematic Review.Journal of clinical medicine · 2023Review
- Effect of Implant Macro-Design and Magnetodynamic Surgical Preparation on Primary Implant Stability: An In Vitro Investigation.Dentistry journal · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
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 (
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.