Electrical mallet provides essential advantages in split-crest and immediate implant placement.

PURPOSE

The aim of this prospective study was to compare the use of a hand mallet versus an electrical mallet in osteotome-assisted surgery for split-crest procedures.

METHODS

Partially edentulous patients, with an alveolar ridge width inferior to the optimally desirable implant diameter, were selected for this study. Forty-six split-crest procedures were performed in 46 patients. They were randomly divided in two groups: in the control group, 23 patients, the split crest was performed with osteotomes using a handheld mallet, while in the test group, 23 patients, the split crest was prepared with osteotomes using an electrical mallet. Alveolar ridge width and incision dimensions were measured with a periodontal probe, before and after the split-crest procedure. One hundred eighty-one implants were immediately placed. Follow-up examinations were performed at baseline and 6, 12, and 24 months.

RESULTS

The survival rate, at 2-year follow-up, was 98.31%. Indeed, two implants placed in the maxilla failed to integrate at second-stage surgery. The initial width of the alveolar ridge varied from 2 to 3.5 mm; the average was 2.8 ± 0.7 mm. The final ridge width varied from 5 to 8 mm; the average was 7.2 ± 1.7 mm. The split length varied from 7 to 28 mm; the average was 17.5 ± 7.7 mm. No statistically significant differences (P > 0.05) were found between test and control group in split length and alveolar width values before and after the split-crest procedure.

CONCLUSIONS

The use of a magnetic mallet provided some essential clinical advantages during crest splitting and immediate implant placement in comparison with a hand mallet.