Abstract
Introduction
Various atraumatic tooth extraction techniques have gained popularity over the last few decades, and numerous instruments have been devised for the same. A pair of physics forceps is one such instrument that maintains the integrity of the gingival and surrounding periodontium while delivering the tooth out of the socket atraumatically. Extractions using these forceps are less invasive over conventional forceps using less intraoperative time but are technique sensitive and have a definitive learning curve.
Aim
To compare the efficacy of physics forceps with conventional forceps in the orthodontic extraction of bilateral premolars and to compare the clinical outcome and complications of each.
Material and Methods
In this prospective randomized split-mouth study, all the patients (n = 50) and total premolars (n = 200) were divided into two groups, in which first premolars in maxillary and mandibular quadrant on one side were extracted with physics forceps (n = 100), whereas those in the other 2 quadrants was done with conventional forceps (n = 100). Clinical outcomes in the form of time taken for extraction, postoperative pain, total number of analgesics taken, buccal cortical plate fracture, soft tissue healing after extraction and other complications were recorded and compared.
Results
The mean time for extraction of premolars with physics forceps was significantly less as compared to the conventional forceps (P 0.001). There was no statistically significant difference in the postoperative pain on any of the postoperative days, between both the groups. No major complication except root fracture was seen in 3 teeth in physics forceps group. Soft tissue healing was similar in both the groups.
Conclusion
Physics forceps are an effective method of atraumatic extraction of premolars as it reduce the intraoperative time significantly and have comparable clinical outcomes as the conventional forceps and are associated with few complications.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Ahel V, Ćabov T, Špalj S, Perić B, Jelušić D, Dmitrašinović M (2015) Forces that fracture teeth during extraction with mandibular premolar and maxillary incisor forceps. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg 53(10):982–987
White J, Holtzclaw D, Toscano N (2009) Powertome assisted atraumatic tooth extraction. J Implant Adv Clin Dent 6:35–44
Weiss A, Stern A, Dym H (2011) Technological advances in extraction techniques and outpatient oral surgery. Dent Clin N Am 55:501–513
Stübinger S, Kuttenberger J, Filippi A, Sader R, Zeilhofer HF (2005) Intraoral piezosurgery: preliminary results of a new technique. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 63(9):1283–1287
Muska E, Walter C, Knight A, Taneja P, Bulsara Y, Hah M, Desai M, Dietrich T (2013) Atraumatic vertical tooth extraction: a proof of principle clinical study of a novel system. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol 116(5):e303–e310
Misch CE (2008) Perez HM (1998) Atraumatic extraction: a biomechanical rationale. Dent Today 27(8):100–101
Pilare K (2017) Physics forceps-a new revolution in exodontia. Int J Curr Res 9(05):51218–51220
Madathanapalli S, Surana S, Thakur D, Ramnani P, Kapse S (2016) Physics forceps vs conventional forceps in extraction of maxillary first molar. Int J Oral Care Res 4(1):29–32
Mandal S, Gupta S, Mittal A, Garg R (2015) Collate on the ability of physics forceps v/s conventional forceps in multirooted mandibular tooth extractions: a randomized control trial. J Dent Med Sci 14(3):63–66
Hariharan S, Narayanan V, Soh CL (2014) Split-mouth comparison of Physics forceps and extraction forceps in orthodontic extraction of upper premolars. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg 52:137–140
Patel HS, Managutti AM, Menat S, Agarwal A, Shah D, Patel J (2016) Comparative evaluation of efficacy of Physics forceps versus Conventional Forceps in orthodontic extractions: A prospective randomized split mouth study. J Clin Diagn Res 10(7):ZC41–ZC45
Lingaraj J, Balihallimathm DS, Inamdar A (2017) Comparison of physics forceps and conventional extraction forceps in orthodontic extraction of upper premolars. Int J Recent Sci Res 8(8):19149–19152
Bijur PE, Silver W, Gallagher EJ (2001) Reliability of the Visual Analog Scale for measurement of acute pain. Acad Emerg Med 8(12):1153–1157
Blum IR (2002) Contemporary views on dry socket (alveolar osteitis): a clinical appraisal of standardization, aetiopathogenesis and management: a critical review. Int J Oral and Maxillofac Surg 31(3):309–317
Oginni FO, Fatusi OA, Alagbe AO (2003) A clinical evaluation of dry socket in a Nigerian teaching hospital. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 61(8):871–879
El-Kenawy MH, Ahmed WM (2015) Comparison between physics and conventional forceps in simple dental extractions. J Maxillofac Oral Surg 14(4):949–955
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
All authors have declared that they have no conflict of interest.
Human and Animal Rights
Research involving human participants and/or animals—yes.
Informed Consent
Yes.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Kapila, S., Kaur, T., Bhullar, R.S. et al. Use of Physics Forceps in Atraumatic Orthodontic Extractions of Bilateral Premolars: A Randomized Control Clinical Study. J. Maxillofac. Oral Surg. 19, 347–354 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12663-020-01347-6
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12663-020-01347-6