The goal of this clinical trial is to evaluate whether the magnetic mallet technique improves primary implant stability and clinical outcomes compared with conventional drilling during dental implant placement in the posterior maxilla with soft bone quality.

The main questions it aims to answer are:

Does the magnetic mallet technique result in higher primary implant stability compared with conventional drilling?

Does the magnetic mallet technique reduce surgical trauma and related complications compared with conventional drilling?

Researchers will compare the magnetic mallet technique with conventional drilling to determine differences in implant stability, bone response, and clinical outcomes.

Participants will:

Undergo dental implant placement using either the magnetic mallet technique or conventional drilling.

Be clinically and radiographically evaluated for implant stability and postoperative outcomes during follow-up

This study is a prospective clinical trial designed to compare the magnetic mallet technique with conventional drilling for dental implant placement in the posterior maxilla characterized by soft bone quality (D4 bone). Achieving adequate primary implant stability in this region remains a clinical challenge, and techniques that preserve and condense bone may improve treatment outcomes.

The magnetic mallet technique uses controlled electromagnetic impulses to prepare the implant site through bone condensation rather than bone removal, potentially enhancing primary stability and reducing surgical trauma. In contrast, conventional drilling relies on rotational cutting instruments that remove bone and may generate heat, which can negatively affect bone vitality.

Eligible participants requiring dental implants in the posterior maxillary region will be randomly allocated to one of two groups: implant site preparation using the magnetic mallet technique or conventional drilling. All implants will be placed following standardized surgical protocols.

Primary outcomes will include the assessment of primary implant stability using objective measurement methods. Secondary outcomes will evaluate peri-implant bone response, intraoperative and postoperative complications, and overall clinical performance during follow-up.

The results of this study aim to provide clinical evidence regarding the effectiveness and safety of the magnetic mallet technique compared with conventional drilling, particularly in soft posterior maxillary bone, to support evidence-based decision-making in implant dentistry

Inclusion Criteria where: patients with

1. healed edentulous posterior maxilla
2. residual vertical bone height ≥ 11 mm, allowing implant placement without sinus augmentation
3. bone quality classified as Type IV (D4) according to the Lekholm and Zarb classification

Exclusion Criteria where: patients with Systemic diseases affecting bone healing, active oral infection, smoking habits, or a need for bone augmentation procedures were excluded.

individual participant data (IPD) that underlie the results reported in this study, after de-identification, will be shared with other researchers upon reasonable request. The data will be available beginning after publication of the primary results and may be used for academic and research purposes only. Requests should be directed to the corresponding author, and access will be granted following approval and completion of a data use agreement.

start date After publication of the primary study results, end date 5 years after publication

de-identified individual participant data and supporting documents, including the study protocol and statistical analysis plan, will be available to qualified researchers for academic and research purposes only. Access will be granted upon reasonable request to the corresponding author, following review and approval of the request and completion of a data use agreement

The outcome assessor is blinded to the implant site preparation technique used in each participant to minimize assessment bias. Due to the nature of the surgical interventions, masking of the surgeon and participants is not feasible.