# Usefulness of the Magnetodynamic Mallet in Tooth Extraction: A Case Series
## 4 Discussion
Moreover, it was also necessary to use a high number of strokes (12 strokes for the right canine and 10 strokes for the right lateral incisor and left canine). This confirms the fact that there is a correlation between the extent of resorption and the degree of trauma that occurs during the intra-operative phase. The percentage of teeth with greater than average bone resorption (1.56 mm) was higher in the mandible (71%) than in the maxilla (32%). This could suggest that there is also a correlation between the different bone types in the maxilla and mandible. The results obtained in this study were compared with data from previous works. In 2003, [PERSON] et al. (2003) observed an approximately 30% reduction in bone crest width 3 months after extraction. However, the average resorption was calculated to be approximately 20%. Indeed, if the width of the crest had been reduced by approximately 30%, the observed bone resorption would not have been 1.56 mm, but 2.29 mm. Therefore, from this first analysis, it can be seen that the use of the Magnetic Mallet(r) in extraction procedures actually provides benefits regarding a minor reduction in the vestibulo-palatal/lingual dimension of the alveolar process. Over the years, numerous clinical studies have been performed regarding the use of grafting materials and mechanical barriers in post-extraction sockets in order to prevent the contraction of the alveolar ridge that occurs following tooth extraction. Analyzing the following data, we note how the use of some types of biomaterials resulted in less bone resorption ([PERSON] et al., 2004; [PERSON] et al., 2005; [PERSON] et al., 2006; [PERSON] et al., 2007; [PERSON] et al., 2008). However, in other cases, the use of grafting materials led to similar, if not worse, results than those obtained in the present study. For example, [PERSON] and [PERSON] (2009) observed a change in the width of the bone crest of 1.85 mm at 4 months following the use of bovine bone mineral, which was a greater reduction than that found in our analysis. Similarly, [PERSON] et al. (2006) obtained resorption of 1.7 mm after 3 months using calcium sulfate hemihydrate and platelet-rich plasma. Moreover,Clozza et al. [46] found buccal-palatal/lingual bone loss of 1.8 mm at 3 months after using bioactive glass. In the study by [PERSON] et al. [47], whose aim was to evaluate the matrix of hydroxyapatite combined with the synthetic P-15 cell-binding peptide, the change in bone thickness at 16 weeks was 1.31 mm, which is a value similar to that of our research. Moreover, [PERSON] at 12-14 weeks in the second test group using hydroxyapatite and silicon dioxide (1.5 mm) and [PERSON] et al. [48] at 3 months using calcium sulfate (1.33 mm) also reported similar bone thickness results. Furthermore, the resorption observed by [PERSON] and [PERSON] [33] at 21 weeks in test group 1 following the use of a bovine xenogenic graft is very similar to ours (1.57 mm) [49]. However, it is important to note that in most of the control groups in which only extractions were performed without the use of biomaterials, the reduction in the buccal-palatal/lingual dimension of the bone crest was significantly higher than that found in this study, reaching values \(\geq 2\) mm. Therefore, we can state that the use of the Magnetic Mallet(r) to perform dental extractions allows for less bone resorption to occur, even without the use of biomaterials that counteract the contraction of the alveolar ridge. This outcome can be partially explained by the results of a biomolecular and histological study on minipigs about bone healing using the Magnetic Mallet(r) in implant placement [50]. This study found that implant sites prepared using the Magnetic Mallet(r) presented a significant increase in newly formed bone, osteoblast number, and a smaller quantity of fibrous tissue, together with significant BMP-4 augmentation and a positive trend in other osteogenic factors.