DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.18203/2320-6012.ijrms20203686

Comparative evaluation of efficacy of physics forceps versus conventional forceps in therapeutic extractions of premolars: a prospective clinical study

Karan V. Panchal, Navin S. Shah, Bhumi Panchal

Abstract


Background: Dental extraction is the removal of a tooth from the oral cavity and is the most common procedure performed in oral surgery. Conventional exodontia tends to cause unnecessary trauma leading to postoperative pain, loss of tissue and stress for the patient. ‘Atraumatic’ dental extraction techniques have nowadays gained popularity and in such case, physics forceps can be helpful in achieving such results. The aim of the study was to evaluate and compare efficacy of physics forceps versus conventional forceps in therapeutic extraction of premolars.

Methods: A total of 35 patients requiring extraction of premolars in maxillary or mandibular arch or both arches for orthodontic treatment purpose were included and divided into groups A and B wherein right sided extractions performed with physics forceps were compared with left sided extractions carried out using conventional forceps in terms of time taken for extraction, bone and soft tissue injury, success score and pain assessment.

Results: The present study suggested statistically significant difference between both the groups. Time taken for extraction, trauma to gingival tissue, bone loss, and visual analogue scale (VAS) score was significantly lesser with physics forceps group, when compared to conventional forceps group. Moreover no significant difference in success score was noted between both the groups.

Conclusions: Physics forceps are comparatively superior to conventional extraction forceps in terms of lesser time taken for the procedure, lesser tendency to induce trauma to both hard and soft tissue and have been found to induce comparatively lesser pain post extraction.


Keywords


Atraumatic extraction, Bone loss, Extraction forceps, Physics forceps, Soft tissue loss

Full Text:

PDF

References


Cicciu M, Bramanti E, Signorino F, Cicciu A, Sortino F. Experimental study on strength evaluation applied for teeth extraction: an in vivo study. Open Dent J. 2013;7:20-6.

Nazarian A. An efficient approach to full-mouth extractions. Dent Today. 2011;30(8):94-6.

Misch CE, Perez HM. Atraumatic extractions: a biomechanical rationale. Dent Today. 2008;27(8):100-1

Mandal S, Gupta S, Mittal A, Garg R. Collate on the ability of physics forceps v/s conventional forceps in multirooted mandibular tooth extractions. J Dent Med Sci. 2015;14(3):63-6.

Sonune AM, Borle RM, Jadhav AA. Comparative evaluation between physics forceps and conventional extraction forceps in orthodontic extraction of maxillary premolars: a prospective, interventional, single blind, randomized split mouth study. Int J Pharm Sc Invent. 2017;6(3):4-8.

Patel HS, Managutti AM, Menat S, Agarwal A, Shah D, Patel J. Comparative evaluation of efficacy of physics forceps versus conventional forceps in orthodontic extractions: a prospective randomized split mouth study. J Clin and Diag Res. 2016;10(7):41-5.

Weiss A, Stern A, Dym H. Technological advances in extraction techniques and outpatient oral surgery. Dent Clin North Am. 2011;55:501-13.

Choi YH, Bae JH. Clinical evaluation of new extraction method for intentional replantation. J Kor Acad Cons Dent. 2011;36:211-8.

Basheer SA. Comparative evaluation between physics forceps and conventional forceps in extraction of maxillary molars. 2017;3(4):152-4.

Ramakrishna Shenoi et al. 'Comparative evaluation of efficacy of physics forceps and conventional extraction forceps in extraction of upper molars- a randomised controlled trial'. Int J Current Adv Res. 2017;6(8):5467-71.

Lingaraj J. Balihallimathm DS, Inamdar A. Comparison of physics forceps and conventional extraction forceps in orthodontic extraction of upper premolars. Int J Recent Sci Res. 2017;8(8):19149-52.

Madathanapalli S, Surana S, Thakur D, Ramnani P, Kapse S. Physics forceps vs conventional forceps in extraction of maxillary first molar. Int J Oral Care Res. 2016;4(1):29-32.