The Efficacy of Physics Forceps for Exodontia: A Systematic Review

Abstract

Purpose The aim of this study was to systematically review the literature to investigate the efficacy of physics forceps compared with conventional forceps for routine exodontia. Methods A systematic review was conducted using Embase, MEDLINE, PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, Dentistry and Oral Sciences Source, Cochrane databases and Google Scholar. Primary outcomes investigated were buccal cortical plate fracture and gingival laceration and secondary outcomes included bleeding, delayed healing, ease of technique, pain, tooth fracture, operating time, and postoperative infection. Results Eight randomized controlled trials were included in the review. One study identified a significant difference in buccal cortical plate fracture (P = .001), and 3 studies reported a significant reduction in gingival laceration (all P ≤ .032) from using physics forceps, compared with conventional forceps. Secondary outcomes of bleeding (K = 2) and pain (K = 3), on day 1, were significantly reduced when using the physics forceps (P ≤ .001 and P ≤ .03, respectively). There were no significant differences or inconclusive results found for tooth fracture, operating time, ease of technique, postoperative infection, and delayed healing. Conclusions The review identified that only a limited number of included studies were reported to provide a more atraumatic approach for routine exodontia in terms of buccal cortical plate fracture, gingival laceration, postoperative pain, and bleeding, when compared with conventional forceps. Most studies reported no significant differences. However, studies were associated with a high risk of bias and selective outcome reporting. The aim of this study was to systematically review the literature to investigate the efficacy of physics forceps compared with conventional forceps for routine exodontia. A systematic review was conducted using Embase, MEDLINE, PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, Dentistry and Oral Sciences Source, Cochrane databases and Google Scholar. Primary outcomes investigated were buccal cortical plate fracture and gingival laceration and secondary outcomes included bleeding, delayed healing, ease of technique, pain, tooth fracture, operating time, and postoperative infection. Eight randomized controlled trials were included in the review. One study identified a significant difference in buccal cortical plate fracture (P = .001), and 3 studies reported a significant reduction in gingival laceration (all P ≤ .032) from using physics forceps, compared with conventional forceps. Secondary outcomes of bleeding (K = 2) and pain (K = 3), on day 1, were significantly reduced when using the physics forceps (P ≤ .001 and P ≤ .03, respectively). There were no significant differences or inconclusive results found for tooth fracture, operating time, ease of technique, postoperative infection, and delayed healing. The review identified that only a limited number of included studies were reported to provide a more atraumatic approach for routine exodontia in terms of buccal cortical plate fracture, gingival laceration, postoperative pain, and bleeding, when compared with conventional forceps. Most studies reported no significant differences. However, studies were associated with a high risk of bias and selective outcome reporting.