Alveolar Bone LossNCT07424820
Magnetic Mallet Vs Conventional Drilling in D4 Posterior Maxilla
A study testing Conventional drilling osteotomy and Magnetic mallet osteotomy in people with Alveolar Bone Loss and Dental Implant, run by University of Mosul at 1 site in Iraq.
Trial 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. Read more about this study
- Who is it for?
- Ages 20 to 60 yearsHealthy volunteers can take part
- Conditions the study is for
- Alveolar Bone Loss, Dental Implant, Osseodensification Drilling Technique
- What is being tested?
- Conventional drilling osteotomy and Magnetic mallet osteotomy
- Type of treatment
- Medical device
- Could I receive a placebo?
- No, everyone receives an active treatment
- How many people
- 30 participants
- Where
- 1 siteIraq
- Study dates
- 1 Nov 2025to 1 Jul 2026
- Phase
- Interventional
- Are there results?
- Not yet: the study is under way
Key requirements
Who can take part, as listed by the sponsor. Only the study team can confirm whether you are eligible, so take this list to your doctor.
- Ages 20 to 60 years
- All sexes
- Healthy volunteers accepted
- Adult
Who may be able to join
- 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
- Exclusion Criteria where: patients with Systemic diseases affecting bone healing, active oral infection, smoking habits, or a need for bone augmentation procedures were excluded.
Who cannot join
None listed.
Trial locations and contacts
1 site in 1 country. Contact the study team or a site near you to ask about taking part.
About this study
Official title: Clinical Comparative Analysis of Magnetic Mallet and Conventional Drilling Techniques for Implant Placement in D4 Bone: A Prospective Study
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:
Read more
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
Read the detailed description
This study is a prospective clinical trial designed to compare the magnetic mallet technique with conventional drilling for dental implant placement in the posterior maxilla characterized by soft bone quality (D4 bone). Achieving adequate primary implant stability in this region remains a clinical challenge, and techniques that preserve and condense bone may improve treatment outcomes.
The magnetic mallet technique uses controlled electromagnetic impulses to prepare the implant site through bone condensation rather than bone removal, potentially enhancing primary stability and reducing surgical trauma. In contrast, conventional drilling relies on rotational cutting instruments that remove bone and may generate heat, which can negatively affect bone vitality.
Eligible participants requiring dental implants in the posterior maxillary region will be randomly allocated to one of two groups: implant site preparation using the magnetic mallet technique or conventional drilling. All implants will be placed following standardized surgical protocols.
Primary outcomes will include the assessment of primary implant stability using objective measurement methods. Secondary outcomes will evaluate peri-implant bone response, intraoperative and postoperative complications, and overall clinical performance during follow-up.
The results of this study aim to provide clinical evidence regarding the effectiveness and safety of the magnetic mallet technique compared with conventional drilling, particularly in soft posterior maxillary bone, to support evidence-based decision-making in implant dentistry
- Being tested
- Conventional drilling osteotomy, Magnetic mallet osteotomy
- Keywords
- Visual Analog Scale, CBCT, Maxillary bone, osseointegration
- Medical subject headings
- Alveolar Bone Loss
What participants receive
What participants receive. In a randomised study each person is assigned to one group by chance.
Conventional drilling osteotomyDevice
implant site preparation using sequential rotary drills according to standard protocol.
Magnetic mallet osteotomyDevice
Implant site preparation using controlled electromagnetic impulses for bone condensation.
| Study group | Role | What they receive |
|---|---|---|
| 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. Receives: 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. Receives: Device: Magnetic mallet osteotomy |
What is being measured
The primary outcome is the main question the study is designed to answer.
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.
Measured: immediately after implant placement and at 3 months postoperatively
Secondary outcomes (1)
postoperative pain
Postoperative pain was assessed using a 10-point Visual Analog Scale (VAS), Visual Analog Scale (VAS), ranging from 0 (no pain) to 10 (worst possible pain).
Measured: 7 days after surgery
Timeline
From the start of the study to its completion; the mark is today. Estimated dates are the sponsor’s plan.
- First posted20 Feb 2026
- Study start1 Nov 2025
- Primary completion1 May 2026 (estimated)
- Study completion1 Jul 2026 (estimated)
Resources
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govThe registry entry this page is built from, with its full change history.
- Publications (17)Papers the sponsor has linked to this study.
- Other trials for Alveolar Bone LossStudies of the same condition, open and under way.
- What the trial phases meanHow a treatment moves from first tests in people to approval.
More details
For doctors and researchers: how the study is designed, who runs it, and its registry IDs.
Study design
- Study type
- Interventional
- Phase
- Phase N/A
- Primary purpose
- Treatment
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Parallel groups
- Model description
- 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.
- Masking
- Single blind
- Who is masked
- Outcomes assessor
- Enrolment
- 30 participants (estimated)
Sponsor and investigators
- Lead sponsor
- University of Mosul
- Sponsor type
- University, hospital or other
- Responsible party
- Principal investigator, Alyaa Ismael Naser, University of Mosul
- Investigators
- Alyaa I. Naser, BDS, MSc. Ph.D., assist. Prof., Principal investigator, Department of OMFS, College of Dentistry, University of Mosul, Nineveh, IraqZaid Adel Alshamaa, Specialized Dentist BDS MSc, Study chair, . International trainer in laser dentistry, former lecturer in college of dentistry
IDs, dates and publications
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT07424820
- Sponsor's protocol ID
- UoM. dent. 26/1001
- Status last verified
- Feb 2026
- First submitted
- 14 Feb 2026
- Last updated
- 27 Feb 2026
- Results posted
- No
- Data monitoring committee
- Yes
- FDA-regulated drug
- No
- FDA-regulated device
- No
- Individual data sharing
- Yes: individual participant data (IPD) that underlie the results reported in this study, after de-identification, will be shared with other researchers upon reasonable request. The data will be available beginning after publication of the primary results and may be used for academic and research purposes only. Requests should be directed to the corresponding author, and access will be granted following approval and completion of a data use agreement.
Publications
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.
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.
PubMed 25876078Crespi 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.
PubMed 22897742Menchini-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.
PubMed 33019711Crespi 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.
PubMed 23748321Bennardo 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.
PubMed 35055423Summers RB. A new concept in maxillary implant surgery: the osteotome technique. Compendium. 1994 Feb;15(2):152, 154-6, 158 passim; quiz 162.
PubMed 8055503Giudice 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.
PubMed 32475099Javed 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.
PubMed 24381734Misch CE. Bone density: a key determinant for clinical success. In: Contemporary Implant Dentistry. 2nd ed. St. Louis: Mosby; 1999. p. 109-118.
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.
PubMed 39463674Hindi 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.
PubMed 325092305. 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.
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
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.
PubMed 15533124
Study at a glance
From the registry record, last updated by the sponsor on 27 Feb 2026. Recruitment status is as the sponsor reported it: confirm with the study team.
- Official title
- Clinical Comparative Analysis of Magnetic Mallet and Conventional Drilling Techniques for Implant Placement in D4 Bone: A Prospective Study
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT07424820
- Acronym / sponsor ID
- UoM. dent. 26/1001
- Keywords
- Visual Analog Scale, CBCT, Maxillary bone, osseointegration
- Study type
- Interventional
- Recruitment status
- Enrolling by invitation
- Enrolment
- 30 participants (estimated)
- Lead sponsor
- University of MosulUniversity, hospital or other
- Study start
- 1 Nov 2025 (actual)
- Primary completion
- 1 May 2026 (estimated)
- Study completion
- 1 Jul 2026 (estimated)
- First posted
- 20 Feb 2026 (actual)
- Results
- Not posted in the source record
Clinical summary
The research question as the sponsor registered it. This describes what the study plans to test, not what it found.
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
Detailed description
This study is a prospective clinical trial designed to compare the magnetic mallet technique with conventional drilling for dental implant placement in the posterior maxilla characterized by soft bone quality (D4 bone). Achieving adequate primary implant stability in this region remains a clinical challenge, and techniques that preserve and condense bone may improve treatment outcomes.
The magnetic mallet technique uses controlled electromagnetic impulses to prepare the implant site through bone condensation rather than bone removal, potentially enhancing primary stability and reducing surgical trauma. In contrast, conventional drilling relies on rotational cutting instruments that remove bone and may generate heat, which can negatively affect bone vitality.
Eligible participants requiring dental implants in the posterior maxillary region will be randomly allocated to one of two groups: implant site preparation using the magnetic mallet technique or conventional drilling. All implants will be placed following standardized surgical protocols.
Primary outcomes will include the assessment of primary implant stability using objective measurement methods. Secondary outcomes will evaluate peri-implant bone response, intraoperative and postoperative complications, and overall clinical performance during follow-up.
The results of this study aim to provide clinical evidence regarding the effectiveness and safety of the magnetic mallet technique compared with conventional drilling, particularly in soft posterior maxillary bone, to support evidence-based decision-making in implant dentistry
Study design
- Primary purpose
- Treatment
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Parallel groups
- Masking
- Single blind (outcomes assessor)
- Number of arms
- 2
- Model description
- 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.
| Arm | Type | Receives |
|---|---|---|
| Conventional Drilling Group | Active comparator | Device: Conventional drilling osteotomyparticipants in this arm will undergo implant site preparation using the conventional drilling osteotomy technique according to standard clinical protocols before dental implant placement. |
| Magnetic Mallet Group | Experimental | Device: Magnetic mallet osteotomyparticipants 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. |
Who may qualify
- Ages
- 20 to 60 years
- Sex
- All
- Healthy volunteers
- Accepted
- Age groups
- Adult
Key inclusion criteria (4 listed)
- 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
- Exclusion Criteria where: patients with Systemic diseases affecting bone healing, active oral infection, smoking habits, or a need for bone augmentation procedures were excluded.
Key exclusion criteria (0 listed)
Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening; this overview does not establish that a patient qualifies. Full inclusion and exclusion criteria.
Interventions
| Intervention | Type | Arms |
|---|---|---|
| Conventional drilling osteotomyimplant site preparation using sequential rotary drills according to standard protocol. | Device | Conventional Drilling Group |
| Magnetic mallet osteotomyImplant site preparation using controlled electromagnetic impulses for bone condensation. | Device | Magnetic Mallet Group |
Primary outcome
implant stability
Time frame: immediately after implant placement and at 3 months postoperatively
Implant stability was assessed using Implant Stability Quotient (ISQ) values , ISQ > 70: High stability. ISQ 60-69: Moderate stability. ISQ < 60: Low stability.
1 secondary outcome
postoperative pain
Time frame: 7 days after surgery
Results and safety
This study is still under way. Results are not available in the source record yet.
Research links
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govLast updated by the sponsor 27 Feb 2026.
- Results publicationAgha 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.
- Results publication: PubMed 25876078Cappare 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.
- Results publication: PubMed 22897742Crespi 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.
- Results publication: PubMed 33019711Menchini-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.
- Results publication: PubMed 23748321Crespi 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.
- Results publication: PubMed 35055423Bennardo 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.
- Results publication: PubMed 8055503Summers RB. A new concept in maxillary implant surgery: the osteotome technique. Compendium. 1994 Feb;15(2):152, 154-6, 158 passim; quiz 162.
- Results publication: PubMed 32475099Giudice 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.
- Results publication: PubMed 24381734Javed 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.
- Results publicationMisch CE. Bone density: a key determinant for clinical success. In: Contemporary Implant Dentistry. 2nd ed. St. Louis: Mosby; 1999. p. 109-118.
- Results publication: PubMed 39463674Sheikh 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.
- Results publication: PubMed 32509230Hindi 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.
- Individual participant dataSharing planned: Yes. individual participant data (IPD) that underlie the results reported in this study, after de-identification, will be shared with other researchers upon reasonable request. The data will be available beginning after publication of the primary results and may be used for academic and research purposes only. Requests should be directed to the corresponding author, and access will be granted following approval and completion of a data use agreement.
Related trials for Alveolar Bone Loss
Recruiting
Effect of Collagen Membrane on Ridge Preservation
Dehiscence, Tooth Extraction
Recruiting
Melatonin Effect on Immediate Dental Implants in the Posterior Mandible
Dental Implant, Immediate Dental Implant Placement
Not yet recruiting
Bone and Soft Tissue Healing After Socket Preservation With NOVAMag or Permamem Membranes
Alveolar Bone Loss, Tooth Loss / Rehabilitation
Enrolling by invitation
Ti-Mesh Frame Comparison for Alveolar Bone Augmentation
Tooth Loss
Recruiting
Bone Marrow Mononuclear Cells for the Repair of Severe Maxillofacial Bone Defects
Maxillofacial Bone Defect, Alveolar Bone Loss
Referral and contact
AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals. Contact the study team or a site listed below; they decide who can take part.
Alyaa I. Naser, BDS, MSc. Ph.D., assist. Prof. principal investigator
Department of OMFS, College of Dentistry, University of Mosul, Nineveh, Iraq
Zaid Adel Alshamaa, Specialized Dentist BDS MSc study chair
. International trainer in laser dentistry, former lecturer in college of dentistry
1 site in 1 country: see every site and its status.
Questions about this trial
What is this clinical trial studying?
A study testing Conventional drilling osteotomy and Magnetic mallet osteotomy in people with Alveolar Bone Loss and Dental Implant, run by University of Mosul at 1 site in Iraq.
The full registered description is in the About this study section and the official record.
Who may be eligible to take part?
The sponsor lists 4 inclusion and 0 exclusion criteria. Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening, so read the full criteria and contact a listed site.
Is this clinical trial currently recruiting?
The record says: enrolling by invitation, as of the sponsor's last update on 27 Feb 2026. Status can change between updates, so confirm with the study contact before making plans.
Where is the study taking place?
The record lists 1 site in Iraq. Whether a site is taking part right now should be confirmed with that site. See every site.
What are the possible benefits and risks?
They depend on the study and the treatment, and no study can promise a benefit. The study team explains the known risks during informed consent, before anyone joins; the record itself does not list them.
Are results available for this study?
This study is still under way. Results are not available in the source record yet.
How can a doctor refer a patient or contact the research team?
The record lists no contact. The official record names the sponsor, who can be asked directly. AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals.
What does the primary outcome measure?
implant stability (time frame: immediately after implant placement and at 3 months postoperatively). It is what the study was designed to measure, not a finding.
Where can I read the original study information?
On the ClinicalTrials.gov record for NCT07424820, which also lists 17 linked publications.
Does a listing mean the treatment is approved or proven to work?
No. A listing means the study is registered. It does not show that the treatment is safe, works, or is approved by a regulator.
How often is this information updated?
AzTrials copies changed records from ClinicalTrials.gov every night and reloads the whole registry every week. The sponsor last updated this record on 27 Feb 2026.