Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2025 Jul 15;25(1):1161.
doi: 10.1186/s12903-025-06513-1.

Clinical efficacy of magnet-assisted removal for dental high-speed dental handpiece broken Burs in mandibular third molar surgery: a retrospective study

Dongdong Xu #  1 , Yaoguang Zhang #  2 , Aijun Jiang  1 , Yayi Cai  1 , Xin Nie  3 , Gu Cheng  4
Affiliations

Clinical efficacy of magnet-assisted removal for dental high-speed dental handpiece broken Burs in mandibular third molar surgery: a retrospective study

Dongdong Xu et al. BMC Oral Health. .

Abstract

Background: Breakage and displacement of the high-speed dental handpiece bur is one of the intraoperative complications during mandibular third molar extraction. The retained metallic fragments can trigger issues such as pain and infection. Traditional retrieval methods require extensive tissue dissection, increasing the risk of nerve injury and postoperative complications. While emerging technologies are precise, their high cost and technical complexity hinder widespread adoption. Therefore, there is an urgent need for minimally invasive and easy-to-use treatments. This retrospective study aimed to compare the clinical efficacy of magnet-assisted removal and conventional methods for retrieving broken burs during mandibular third molar surgery, as well as to analyze the associated factors and outcomes.

Methods: This retrospective study analyzed 15 cases of broken burs removal divided into conventional removal (n = 7) and magnet-assisted removal (n = 8) groups. Primary outcomes included operative time and success rate; secondary outcomes encompassed 24-hour postoperative visual analogue scale (VAS) pain scores, limited mouth opening at 72 h postoperatively, and neurosensory disturbances.

Results: Compared to conventional removal, magnet-assisted removal significantly reduced operative time (P = 0.03) and showed a non-significant trend toward lower neurosensory complication rates (P = 0.036). Although the success rate of magnet-assisted removal (100%) exceeded that of conventional removal techniques (71.4%), this difference was not statistically significant. The magnet group demonstrated superior secondary outcomes, lower mean VAS scores and fewer cases of limited mouth opening.

Conclusions: Magnet-assisted removal is a technically simple, safe, and effective minimally invasive alternative to conventional removal methods. Its advantages include reduced operative duration and potentially improved postoperative recovery.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Declarations. Ethics approval and consent to participate: This study was performed in line with the principles of the Declaration of Helsinki and approved by the Ethics Committee of School of Stomatology, Wenzhou Medical University. (Protocol No. WYKQ2023043). Written informed consent was obtained from the subject. Consent for publication: All authors have given their consent to the submission and publication of this manuscript. The manuscript has not been published elsewhere, nor is it under consideration for publication in another journal. Competing interests: The authors declare no competing interests.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
(A) Preoperative panoramic radiograph. (B) Panoramic radiograph showing the bur fragment embedded between the root and the alveolar bone. (C) The magnet bar. (D) The fragment sucked out by the magnet. (E) The broken high-speed hand-piece bur
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
(A) Preoperative panoramic radiograph. (B) Panoramic radiograph showing the bur fragment embedded in the alveolar bone. C, D, E. CBCT showing the location of the fragment. F. The fragment sucked out by a magnet. The red arrows showing the bur fragment. G. post-operative panoramic radiograph
Fig. 3
Fig. 3
Comparison of operative time distributions between conventional and magnet-assisted bur fragment removal methods
Fig. 4
Fig. 4
Comparison of VAS scores distributions between conventional and magnet-assisted bur fragment removal methods
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Candotto V, Oberti L, Gabrione F, Scarano A, Rossi D, Romano M. Complication in third molar extractions. J Biol Regul Homeost Agents. 2019;33(3 Suppl 1):169–72. Dental supplement. - PubMed
    1. Sayed N, Bakathir A, Pasha M, Al-Sudairy S. Complications of third molar extraction: A retrospective study from a tertiary healthcare centre in Oman. Sultan Qaboos Univ Med J. 2019;19(3):e230–5. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Bouloux GF, Steed MB, Perciaccante VJ. Complications of third molar surgery. Oral Maxillofac Surg Clin North Am. 2007;19(1):117–28. vii. - PubMed
    1. Parrini S, Bovicelli A, Chisci G. Microbiological retention on PTFE versus silk suture: A quantitative pilot study in third molar surgery. Antibiot (Basel) 2023, 12(3). - PMC - PubMed
    1. Nie T, Chang B, Tian L, Cao S, Wang J, Qi H, Gao L. Correlation of Complex Impacted Mandibular Teeth with Pericoronitis and Effect of Minimally Invasive Tooth Extraction on Patients’ Long-term Outcome of Masticatory Ability. Emerg Med Int 2022, 2022:6389900. - PMC - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources