Use of Physics Forcep Versus Conventional Forcep in Extraction of Mandibular First Molar: Physics Forcep Versus Conventional Forcep

Benazeer; Farah  Irshad; Usman  Qadir Khan; Zunair Akbar  Memon; Suneel  Kumar Punjabi; Syed Aijaz  Ali Zaidi

doi:10.54393/pjhs.v4i05.710

Authors

Benazeer Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Liaquat University of Medical and Health Sciences, Jamshoro, Pakistan
Farah Irshad Department of Oral Medicine, Bahria Dental College, Bahria University, Karachi, Pakistan
Usman Qadir Khan Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Shahida Islam Medical and Dental College, Lodhran, Pakistan
Zunair Akbar Memon Department of Oral Medicine, Isra Dental College, Isra University, Hyderabad, Pakistan
Suneel Kumar Punjabi Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Liaquat University of Medical and Health Sciences, Jamshoro, Pakistan
Syed Aijaz Ali Zaidi Department of Oral Medicine, Baqai Dental College, Baqai University, Karachi, Pakistan

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.54393/pjhs.v4i05.710

Keywords:

Dental Extraction, Physics Forceps, Conventional Forceps, Post-Operative Pain

Abstract

Dental extractions are common. Atraumatic extractions utilizing various technologies are said to protect paradental structures. The new physics forceps can extract the teeth without stress. Objective: To compare the efficacy of physics versus conventional forcep in extraction of mandibular first molar. Methods: Patients aged 18 t0 40 requiring extraction of mandibular first molar were included in the study. The efficacy of extraction was evaluated based on bone loss, soft tissue tear, time required for extraction, postoperative pains, and root fracture. The participants were divided into two groups (Physics forcep and conventional forcep) using block randomization technique, and the pain and time between both groups were compared using independent samples t-test. Results: The two groups had a mean age of 2.85 ± 0.355 years. Physics Forceps (n=1, 6.7%) caused less soft tissue tears than Conventional Forceps (n=14, 93.3%) (p=0.01). 55.5% of the Physics Forceps group and 44.5% of the Conventional Forceps group took more than 10 minutes to extract (p=0.045). Physics Forceps had a greater rate of complete success (p=0.043) than Conventional forceps (p=0.043). In terms of overall instrument utility, physics forceps scored better than Conventional forces in both good and average scores (p=0.021). The difference in mean pain score in the two groups was statistically significant (p=0.0018) at day 3 and day 7 (p=0.0001) being lower in physic forcep. Conclusions: Physics forceps are a more favorable substitute to traditional forceps for atraumatic tooth extraction.

References

Hariharan S, Narayanan V, Soh CL. Split-mouth comparison of Physics forceps and extraction forceps in orthodontic extraction of upper premolars. British Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery. 2014 Dec; 52(10): e137-40. doi: 10.1016/j.bjoms.2014.06.013.

El-Kenawy MH and Ahmed WM. Comparison between physics and conventional forceps in simple dental extraction. Journal of maxillofacial and oral surgery. 2015 Dec; 14: 949-55. doi: 10.1007/s12663-015-0765-6.

Passarelli PC, Pagnoni S, Piccirillo GB, Desantis V, Benegiamo M, Liguori A, et al. Reasons for tooth extractions and related risk factors in adult patients: a cohort study. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2020 Apr; 17(7): 2575. doi: 10.3390/ijerph17072575.

Chrysanthakopoulos NA. Reasons for extraction of permanent teeth in Greece: a five-year follow-up study. International Dental Journal. 2011 Feb; 61(1): 19-24. doi: 10.1111/j.1875-595X.2011.00004.x.

Perkins NJ, Perez HM, Misch CE, Golden R. P35 The physics forceps–a breakthrough in dental extraction technology. British Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery. 2010 May; 48: S34. doi: 10.1016/S0266-4356(10)60126-X.

Shareef RA, Chaturvedi S, Suleman G, Elmahdi AE, Elagib MF. Analysis of tooth extraction causes and patterns. Open Access Macedonian Journal of Medical Sciences. 2020 Apr; 8(D): 36-41. doi: 10.3889/oamjms.2020.3784.

Hupp JR, Tucker MR, Ellis EI. Principles of routine exodontia. Contemporary Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery. 2013 Mar; 6:88-118. doi: 10.1016/B978-0-323-09177-0.00007-4.

Weiss A, Stern A, Dym H. Technological advances in extraction techniques and outpatient oral surgery. Dental Clinics. 2011 Jul; 55(3): 501-13. doi: 10.1016/j.cden.2011.02.008.

Kapila S, Kaur T, Bhullar RS, Sandhu A, Dhawan A, Kaur A. Use of physics forceps in atraumatic orthodontic extractions of bilateral premolars: a randomized control clinical study. Journal of Maxillofacial and Oral Surgery. 2020 Sep; 19: 347-54. doi: 10.1007/s12663-020-01347-6.

Dashti M and Zareh S. Principles in Exodontia. Innovative Perspective in Oral Maxillofacial Surgery. 2021 Jul; 4: 393-400. doi: 10.1007/978-3-030-75750-2_43.

Patil SS, Rakhewar PS, Doiphode SS. Strategic extraction: an unexampled epitome altering our profession. Journal of Dental Implants 2012 Jul; 2(2): 121-6. doi: 10.4103/0974-6781.102230.

Dym H and Weiss A. Exodontia: tips and techniques for better outcomes. Dental Clinics. 2012 Jan; 56(1): 245-66. doi: 10.1016/j.cden.2011.07.002.

Abdelwahab M, Nørholt SE, Taneja P. The Efficacy of Physics Forceps for Exodontia: A Systematic Review. Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery. 2021 May; 79(5): 989-e1. doi: 10.1016/j.joms.2020.12.033.

Singh AK, Khanal N, Acharya N, Rokaya D, Hasan MR, Saito T. Are Physics Forceps Less Traumatic than Conventional Forceps for Tooth Extraction? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials. Dentistry Journal. 2022 Jan; 10(2): 21. doi: 10.3390/dj10020021.

Raghu K, Selvakumar SR, Muthukumar R, Thangavelu A, Sathyanarayanan R, Mani M, et al. Beak and bumper–Physics forceps: Evaluation of new technique in extraction. Indian Journal of Dental Research. 2020 Jan; 31(1): 4. doi: 10.4103/ijdr.IJDR_433_18.

Misch CE and Perez HM. Atraumatic extractions: a biomechanical rationale. Dentistry Today. 2008 Aug; 27(8): 98-100.

Hasan AM. The efficiency of physics forceps in comparison to the conventional dental extraction forceps: A randomized clinical trial. Journal of Baghdad College of Dentistry. 2019 Jun; 31(2): 52-9. doi: 10.26477/jbcd.v31i2.2624.

Hariharan S, Narayanan V, Soh CL. Split-mouth comparison of Physics forceps and extraction forceps in orthodontic extraction of upper premolars. British Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery. 2014 Dec; 52(10): e137-40. doi: 10.1016/j.bjoms.2014.06.013.

Basheer SA. Comparative evaluation between physics forceps and conventional extraction forceps in extraction of maxillary molars. International Journal Applied Dental Science. 2017 Sep; 34: 152-9.

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. Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research: JCDR. 2016 Jul; 10(7): ZC41. doi: 10.7860/JCDR/2016/17724.8160.

El-Kenawy MH and Ahmed WM. Comparison between physics and conventional forceps in simple dental extraction. Journal of Maxillofacial and Oral Surgery. 2015 Dec; 14: 949-55. doi: 10.1007/s12663-015-0765-6.