Usefulness of Magnetic Mallet in Oral Surgery and Implantology: A Systematic Review

This systematic review aimed to answer the question: “Is the use of magnetic mallet effective in oral and implant surgery procedures in terms of tissue healing, surgery outcome, and complication rate compared to traditional instruments?” A literature search of PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science databases (articles published until 1 October 2021) was conducted, in accordance with the PRISMA statement, using the keywords “magnetic mallet”, “electric mallet”, “oral surgery”, “implantology”, and “dental implant”. Of 252 articles, 14 were included in the review (3 for teeth extraction, and 11 for implant dentistry). Out of a total of 619 dental extractions (256 patients) performed with the magnetic mallet (MM), no complications were reported. Implants inserted totaled 880 (525 patients): 640 in the MM groups (382), and 240 in control groups (133). The survival rate of implants was 98.9% in the MM groups, and 95.42% in the control groups. Seven patients experienced benign paroxysmal positional vertigo after implant surgery, all in control groups. Results are not sufficient to establish the effectiveness of MM in oral and implant surgery procedures. Randomized controlled trials with a large sample size are needed.

Systematic review on diabetes mellitus and dental implants: an update

Purpose Dental implant surgery was developed to be the most suitable and comfortable instrument for dental and oral rehabilitation in the past decades, but with increasing numbers of inserted implants, complications are becoming more common. Diabetes mellitus as well as prediabetic conditions represent a common and increasing health problem (International Diabetes Federation in IDF Diabetes Atlas, International Diabetes Federation, Brussels, 2019) with extensive harmful effects on the entire organism [(Abiko and Selimovic in Bosnian J Basic Med Sci 10:186–191, 2010), (Khader et al., in J Diabetes Complicat 20:59–68, 2006, 10.1016/j.jdiacomp.2005.05.006)]. Hence, this study aimed to give an update on current literature on effects of prediabetes and diabetes mellitus on dental implant success. Methods A systematic literature research based on the PRISMA statement was conducted to answer the PICO question “Do diabetic patients with dental implants have a higher complication rate in comparison to healthy controls?”. We included 40 clinical studies and 16 publications of aggregated literature in this systematic review. Results We conclude that patients with poorly controlled diabetes mellitus suffer more often from peri-implantitis, especially in the post-implantation time. Moreover, these patients show higher implant loss rates than healthy individuals in long term. Whereas, under controlled conditions success rates are similar. Perioperative anti-infective therapy, such as the supportive administration of antibiotics and chlorhexidine, is the standard nowadays as it seems to improve implant success. Only few studies regarding dental implants in patients with prediabetic conditions are available, indicating a possible negative effect on developing peri-implant diseases but no influence on implant survival. Conclusion Dental implant procedures represent a safe way of oral rehabilitation in patients with prediabetes or diabetes mellitus, as long as appropriate precautions can be adhered to. Accordingly, under controlled conditions there is still no contraindication for dental implant surgery in patients with diabetes mellitus or prediabetic conditions.

‘Progressive peripheral anterior synechiae in iridocorneoendothelial syndrome- a crawling disaster’

Purpose Iridocorneal endothelial (ICE) syndrome is well known to cause refractory glaucoma in young adults. Commonly acclaimed mechanism for trabeculectomy failure in these cases include accelerated subconjunctival fibrosis, abnormal endothelial proliferation, and closure of ostium. In the following article, we present a case of Iridocorneal endothelial syndrome that presented with refractory glaucoma after trabeculectomy due to rapidly progressive peripheral anterior synechiae causing angle closure and corneal decompensation that mandated a tailored surgical approach of management. Methods: This is a descriptive case report based on electronic medical records, patient observation, surgical intervention, and follow-ups. Case description: A thirty-eight-year-old-male presented to us with signs suggestive of iridocorneal endothelial syndrome with gonioscopy revealing peripheral anterior synechiae (PAS) over four clock-hours temporally. Uncontrolled intraocular pressure (IOP) despite maximal medical therapy mandated augmented trabeculectomy with anti-fibrotics. The bleb failed within 3 weeks of trabeculectomy, with evidence of progressive crawling PAS causing endothelial decompensation and raised IOP. He underwent Ahmed glaucoma valve (AGV) implant surgery with viscosynechiolysis and sectoral iridectomy under antiviral cover. This helped control IOP and retain corneal clarity, with no recurrence of PAS in the affected area. Conclusion: Progressive peripheral synechiae in ICE syndrome can cause early bleb failure and refractory glaucoma. Careful viscosynechiolysis and sectoral iridectomy alongside a second implant surgery can help salvage visual functions and preserve corneal clarity while preventing further progression of PAS in these eyes.