IMPLANT SITE PREPARATION TECHNIQUES COMPARED: MAGNETODYNAMIC, PIEZOELECTRIC AND TRADITIONAL SURGERY

Aim: this study compared magnetodynamic surgery, tradition- al drill-based surgery, and piezoelectric surgery for the prepa- ration of the implant site, focusing on operative time and intra/ postoperative discomfort. Methods: a total of 86 patients (69.8% female, 30.2% male) treated at the Oral Surgery Clinic, University of Trieste, were in- cluded. 43 underwent implant placement with the Magnetic Mallet (MM); the remaining 43 received preparation with the Pi- ezodevice (IP) on one side and drills (D) on the other. All surger- ies were performed by the same operator. Data included bone quality, operative time, and postoperative questionnaire re- sponses for pain (VAS scale) and analgesic use. A statistical analysis was conducted using Mann–Whitney U and Kruskal-Wallis tests. Results: significant differences emerged in operative times and pain perception, influenced by bone quality. The MM and D had comparable times in D1–D2 and D3–D4 bone, but the D produced higher VAS scores. The MM vs IP showed significant differences in absolute times (p = 0.00018) and relative times for both D1–D2 (p = 0.01875) and D3–D4 (p = 0.00584), with qualitative VAS differences. The IP vs D also showed signifi- cant absolute (p = 0.000005) and relative time differences for D1–D2 (p = 0.00718) and D3–D4 (p = 0.000145), with VAS var- iations. In the MM group, higher bone density significantly pro- longed times (p = 0.04136). Conclusions: within the limits of this study, the traditional drill- based technique remains valid and widely used, but the Mag- netic Mallet can offer advantages in terms of patient comfort and postoperative recovery. The Piezodevice, while excelling in tissue preservation, is limited by longer operative times.