The Efficiency Of Physics Forceps In Comparison To The Conventional Dental Extraction Forceps: A randomized Clinical Trial

Background: Tooth extraction is one of the most commonly performed procedures in dentistry. It is usually a traumatic process often resulting in immediate destruction and loss of alveolar bone and surrounding soft tissues. Various instruments have been described to perform atraumatic extractions which can prevent damage to the paradental structures. The physics forceps is one of those innovations in dental extraction technologies that claim to provide an efficient means for atraumatic dental extractions. Materials and method: A randomized clinical trial was conducted to compare the physics forceps with the conventional forceps for the removal of 28 mandibular single rooted teeth under the following parameters: incidence of crown, root, buccal alveolar bone fracture, the incidence of gingival tear and time needed for extraction. The samples were assigned randomly into two groups according to the computer based randomization software, into a control group (A) and study group (B). The control group was subjected to the surgical extraction procedure using the conventional forceps while the study group was subjected to the surgical extraction procedure using the physics forceps. Results: results showed that the time required for extraction using the physics forceps was (mean 0.385 min.), which was significantly lesser as compared with that of conventional forceps (mean 3.971 min.) (P=0.011), buccal bone fracture occurred in 4 out of 14 cases (28.57%) using the conventional forceps while it did not occur with the use of the physics forceps (0.00%), crown fracture occurred in 3 cases using the conventional forceps (21.43%), while it did not occur with the use of the physics forceps (0.00%), root fracture occurred in 1 case using the physics forceps (3.57%), while it did not occur with the use of the conventional forceps (0.00%). As for the gingival tear, it occurred in 7 cases using the conventional forceps (50.00%), while it did not occur with the use of the physics forceps (0.00%) which was highly significant (P=0.006). Conclusions: the use of physics forceps maintains the integrity of gingiva and surrounding periodontium. So extractions using physics forceps are less invasive over conventional forceps and can be considered as a reliable method for extraction requiring significantly less comparative intraoperative time.