Traditional surgical techniques are based on the manual application of force using mallets and osteotomes, which often result in uncontrolled impact forces, procedural inconsistencies, and patient discomfort. Magnetic mallets (MMs), magnetodynamic devices, provide a controlled application of force using electromagnetism, aiming to achieve greater precision, reduced operating time, and improved surgical outcomes. The aim of the present systematic review was to evaluate the effectiveness of MMs compared to conventional surgical techniques in oral and implant surgery. The focused question was as follows: “Do magnetic mallets improve clinical outcomes in oral and implant surgery compared to traditional instruments?” Only clinical studies comparing the use of MMs with traditional techniques in oral surgery were included. The following databases were searched up to 27 November 2025: Pubmed, Scopus, Web of Science. For quality assessment, the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2 (RoB 2) tool was applied for randomized controlled trials (RCTs), while the Newcastle–Ottawa Scale (NOS) was used for non-randomized studies. Data were screened and synthesized by two reviewers. The systematic review was conducted based on Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) Statement. In total, 347 studies were initially found and 6 matched the inclusion criteria and were included in the review, for a total of 282 patients. Five RCTs were included, as well as one retrospective study. The studies investigated were as follows: implant site preparation (two studies with a total of 86 patients), sinus lift and contextual implant insertion (three studies, total: 102 patients), dental extraction (two studies, total: 70 patients), and split-crest (one study with 46 patients). The outcomes suggest that MMs may serve as a potential alternative to traditional techniques, exhibiting promising although preliminary outcomes. The studies included reported a lower incidence of benign paroxysmal positional vertigo with the use of MMs compared to hand osteotomes. Regarding quality assessment, RCTs raised some concerns, while the retrospective study had a moderate risk of bias. Despite the promising results, the paucity of high-quality controlled trials limits definitive conclusions on the superiority of MM over conventional techniques. Further well-designed comparative trials are needed to confirm the clinical benefits, optimize protocols across different indications, and evaluate MMs’ potential role in the management of critical bone conditions and complex surgery.
Baldi et al. (Sun,) studied this question.