ArticleBMC oral health2025
Clinical efficacy of magnet-assisted removal for dental high-speed dental handpiece broken Burs in mandibular third molar surgery: a retrospective study.
Article in BMC oral health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundBreakage and displacement of the high-speed dental handpiece bur is one of the intraoperative complications during mandibular third molar extraction. The retained metallic fragments can trigger issues such as pain and infection. Traditional retrieval methods require extensive tissue dissection, increasing the risk of nerve injury and postoperative complications. While emerging technologies are precise, their high cost and technical complexity hinder widespread adoption. Therefore, there is an urgent need for minimally invasive and easy-to-use treatments. This retrospective study aimed to compare the clinical efficacy of magnet-assisted removal and conventional methods for retrieving broken burs during mandibular third molar surgery, as well as to analyze the associated factors and outcomes.
methodsThis retrospective study analyzed 15 cases of broken burs removal divided into conventional removal (n = 7) and magnet-assisted removal (n = 8) groups. Primary outcomes included operative time and success rate; secondary outcomes encompassed 24-hour postoperative visual analogue scale (VAS) pain scores, limited mouth opening at 72 h postoperatively, and neurosensory disturbances.
resultsCompared to conventional removal, magnet-assisted removal significantly reduced operative time (P = 0.03) and showed a non-significant trend toward lower neurosensory complication rates (P = 0.036). Although the success rate of magnet-assisted removal (100%) exceeded that of conventional removal techniques (71.4%), this difference was not statistically significant. The magnet group demonstrated superior secondary outcomes, lower mean VAS scores and fewer cases of limited mouth opening.
conclusionsMagnet-assisted removal is a technically simple, safe, and effective minimally invasive alternative to conventional removal methods. Its advantages include reduced operative duration and potentially improved postoperative recovery.
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.