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.
ABSTRACT
PURPOSE: Intentional replantation (IR) is a suitable treatment option when nonsurgical retreatment and periradicular surgery are unfeasible. For successful IR, fracture-free safe extraction is crucial step. Recently, a new extraction method of atraumatic safe extraction (ASE) for IR has been introduced. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Ninety-six patients with the following conditions who underwent IR at the Department of Conservative Dentistry, Seoul National University Bundang Hospital, in 2010 were enrolled in this study: failed nonsurgical retreatment and periradicular surgery not recommended because of anatomical limitations or when rejected by the patient. Preoperative orthodontic extrusive force was applied for 2-3 weeks to increase mobility and periodontal ligament volume. A Physics Forceps was used for extraction and the success rate of ASE was assessed. RESULTS: Ninety-six premolars and molars were treated by IR. The complete success rate (no crown and root fracture) was 93% (n = 89); the limited success rates because of partial root tip fracture and partial osteotomy were 2% (n = 2) and 5% (n = 5), respectively. The clinical and overall success rates of ASE were 95% and 100%, respectively; no failure was observed. CONCLUSIONS: ASE can be regarded as a reproducible, predictable method of extraction for IR.