Physics Forceps Research Articles

Minimally invasive extractions with physics forceps - clinical evaluation and comparison.

Tooth extraction is still one of the most common dental procedures, routinely performed for a variety of reasons. Tooth extraction forceps and elevators are well-known extraction instruments which have been the standard in tooth extraction procedures for well over a hundred years. Physics forceps are one possible alternative, aiming to perform less traumatic and more predictable extractions.

Comparison of physics forceps to conventional forceps in simple dental extraction

Background: In this study, Conventional forceps & Physics forceps were compared in simple dental extractions with respect to crown and root fracture of tooth during extraction, alveolar bone plate fracture, gingival laceration, requirement of sutures, duration of surgery, comparative pain evaluation through visual analogue scale and analgesic requirement in the first 24 hours post operatively. Methods: This study was conducted at our centre where 200 patients requiring simple dental extractions were randomly divided into two groups, each having 100 patients. Extractions in one group were done using Conventional forceps and in other group were done using Physics forceps. All parameters were measured during surgery & questionnaires were given to all the patients to assess the pain perception & analgesic requirement postoperatively till 24 hours. Results: The results of present study showed decreased incidence of crown and root fracture of tooth, alveolar bone plate fracture, gingival lacerations, requirement of sutures, lesser duration for extraction and lesser pain perception in Physics forceps group. No significant difference was found between two groups for analgesic intake. Conclusions: Physics forceps group patients had superior results compared to patients in Conventional forceps group which may be attributed to lesser hard and soft tissue injuries and better pain control in Physics forceps group.

Assessment of Intraoperative Complications Associated with Extraction Technique Using Physics Forceps and the Conventional Method: A Split-mouth Comparative Study

Tooth extraction is one of the most frequently performed surgeries, and several instruments were invented throughout history. This study's purpose is to assess the efficacy of physics forceps in comparison to conventional tooth extraction forceps in bilateral dental extraction and their associated intraoperative complications, including crown fracture, root fracture, buccal cortical plate fracture (BCPF), gingival lacerations, and bleeding time. All participants (n = 20) and total extractions (n = 40) were randomly assigned within two groups. Teeth were extracted utilizing physics forceps on one side of the maxillary or mandibular quadrants (n = 20) and conventional forceps on the other side (n = 20). Clinical data were gathered and analyzed. The findings show none of the patients in any of the groups had a crown fracture, however, the occurrence of roots and buccal cortical plate fractures were higher within control group. The incidence of gingival lacerations was seven times (35 %) in the study group and eight times (40 %) in the control group. Bleeding time in control group was longer than that in the study group (P value = 0.022) with a moderate effect size (ES = 0.676). In this study, buccal traumatic ulcer formation was observed in 5 cases (25 %) in study group due to excessive pressure application on the buccal soft tissue. In conclusion, physics forceps provide clinical outcomes comparable to conventional forceps and could be used for routine exodontia.

Comparative evaluation of efficacy of physics forcep and conventional forceps for extraction of maxillary molars.

Tooth extraction is one of the most commonly performed procedures in dentistry. It is usually a traumatic procedure often resulting in immediate destruction and loss of alveolar bone and surrounding soft tissues. It is the only dental procedure which was carried out by dentists in the previous centuries and various instruments have evolved for this procedure over time. Atraumatic extraction is one of the essential dental procedures, as atraumatic extraction leads to proper wound healing and appropriate bone healing. Physics forceps have got a new role in extraction technique, that it makes just one contact point with the tooth as a unique benefit. Physics forceps depends on the physics of rotational power, lever and torque much like a bottle top removal. A study was conducted to evaluate the efficacy of physics forceps and conventional forces in the extraction of maxillary molar. Eligible participants were adults aged 18-50 diagnosed with grossly decayed maxillary molars with poor endodontic prognosis and willing to participate in the study. Exclusion criteria were as follows: patients with dilacerate roots; patients with systemic diseases like hypertension, diabetes mellitus, thyroid, tuberculosis, epilepsy seizures, COVID-19 positive; patients' non-acceptance to voluntarily participate in research a refusal to sign the informed consent. Parameters such as a crown fracture or root fracture; buccal bone fracture; time taken for extraction and operator ease on the VAS scale are assessed. Results showed that with the use of physics forces, there was very less incidence of crown fracture and no incidence of buccal bone fracture, whereas with the conventional forceps the result showed that in almost all the time taken for extraction was much more in conventional forcep and the operator ease rating was more with conventional forceps. Hence, oral surgeons as well as general practitioner should adapt the use of physics forceps in routine extractions.

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

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.

Evaluation and Comparison of Physics Forceps and Conventional Forceps in Bilateral Dental Extraction: A Randomized, Split-Mouth, Clinical Study.

Background Interest in atraumatic tooth extraction has increased because it aims to preserve the dental alveolus. Several tools have been designed for atraumatic extraction, including the recently invented physics forceps. This study aims to assess the physics forceps and compare the clinical outcomes to the conventional forceps. Methodology A prospective, randomized, split-mouth, single-blind study was conducted among 20 healthy patients needing bilateral extraction. Participants were randomly assigned to perform physics forceps extraction on one quadrant and conventional forceps extraction on the opposite quadrant. Clinical outcomes were recorded and compared, including time taken for extraction, root fracture, buccal cortical plate fracture, postoperative pain, patient satisfaction, and post-extraction socket healing. Results The mean extraction time of physics forceps was shorter than conventional forceps but without statistical significance. Root and buccal cortical plate fractures were lower in the physics forceps group. Statistical difference in postoperative pain was found on the third postoperative day as pain scored higher in the physics group (p = 0.038). Higher patient satisfaction was found in the physics forceps group (85%). Post-extraction socket healing was equal in 75% of the cases. Conclusions Physics forceps is a novel and efficient atraumatic dental extractor. It reduces intraoperative time, is associated with higher patient satisfaction, and has comparable clinical outcomes to conventional forceps.

Bilateral orthodontic extractions using physics versus conventional forceps among Indian patients.

It is of interest to assess whether or not physics forceps are superior to traditional forceps for the extraction of premolar teeth in orthodontic procedures. Tooth and buccal bone fractures, as well as extraction time, lacerated gingiva, postoperative discomfort, and infection, were all measured in this research of both types of forceps extraction. Twenty individuals who need orthodontic extraction on both jaws were enrolled in the research. One arch's premolars were removed in two appointments, the first using Physics forceps and the second using conventional ones. The subsequent assignment included extraction from the obverse arch. Intraoperative evaluations included assessments of factors such as tooth and buccal bone fractures, surgical time, and gingival lacerations; postoperative assessments of pain and infection were conducted on days 1, 3, and 7. With physics forceps, the average time to remove a patient's mandible was 86.55 seconds, whereas traditional forceps required just 35.70 seconds. Using traditional forceps, the average pain score was 0.865 on day one after surgery, but with physics forceps, it was 3.30. The use of physics forceps resulted in one buccal bone fracture out of twenty premolar extractions. That so, no meaningful statistical change was seen. There was no tooth damage or post-operative infection with either set of forceps, it was found. Each forceps caused a Grade I laceration to the gingiva. The average time required removing a maxillary using physics forceps was 224.05 seconds, whereas the time required doing it with conventional forceps was 141.50 seconds. On a Visual Analogue Scale (VAS), the average first-day pain after surgery using physics forceps was 4.90, whereas using traditional forceps resulted in just 3.15. The difference between using physics forceps and regular forceps was statistically significant by the third postoperative day (2.05 vs 0.75). There was a statistically insignificant increase in the occurrence of buccal bone fracture and tooth fracture while using physics forceps. Both forceps and scissors caused just grade I lacerations, and there was no postoperative infection. These findings suggest that the use of physics forceps, as opposed to conventional forceps, may significantly lengthen the time required to remove orthodontic premolars on both sides of the mouth. Non-significant results were also found for additional criteria such as buccal bone fracture, tooth fracture, gingival laceration, and post-operative discomfort. When it comes to orthodontic premolar extraction, this research found that traditional forceps performed better than modern forceps across a range of measures, including intraoperative time and postoperative discomfort.

Comparative Evaluation of Efficacy of Physics Forceps Versus Conventional Forceps in Orthodontic Extractions

Objective: To comparative evaluation of efficacy of physics forceps versus conventional forceps in orthodontic extractions. Design of the Study: It was a cross-sectional survey. Place and Duration of Study: This study was carried at Department of Maxillofacial Surgery Mufti Mehmood Teaching Hospital Dera Ismail Khan from January 2022 to June 2022. Patients and Methods: Total 300 healthy patients reporting to our department and who were indicated for removal of tooth with ideal extraction indications and conditions, and consenting for the same were taken up for the study. Patients were divided into 2 groups: Group-1 consisted of a split mouth study with 100 patients and Group-2 consisted of 200 patients consecutively selected and further categorised randomly, were subdivided into 2 subgroups, Group-2A (Conventional forceps group) and Group-2B (Physics forceps group) with 100 patients each. All the extraction procedures were done by 2 operators namely A and B & an experienced observing assistant was used for the assessment of Operative complications. Every patient underwent an adequate pre-surgical preparation consisting of adequate case history, gross scaling, blood test where indicated and radiographic examination. Results of the Study: In Group-1 the average time taken with physics forceps was 33.14 seconds with a SD of 12.272 seconds and the average time taken with conventional forceps was 53.86 seconds with a SD of 24.985 seconds. In Group-2 the average time taken with physics forceps was 24.77 seconds with a SD of 9.878 seconds and the average time taken with conventional forceps was 34.78 seconds with a SD of 8.693 seconds. In Group-1 on 3rd post-operative day, with Conventional forceps the mean pain score was 6.45 and with Physics forceps the mean pain score was 4.15. In Group-2, on 3rd post-operative day, with Conventional forceps the mean pain score was 6.46 and with Physics forceps the mean pain score was 3.75. Conclusion: 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. Keywords: Bone loss, Extraction forceps, Physics forceps, Soft tissue loss

Performance of Physics Forceps Vs Traditional Forceps: A Review Article

Performance of Physics Forceps Vs Traditional Forceps: A Review Article

To ease orthodontic extraction – A novel technique

Atraumatic extractions are always the prerequisite for immaculate orthodontic results. Of all the extractions desired by the orthodontist, maxillary first premolar is challenging for the dentist / oral surgeon specifically because of its thin and slender roots with wide variations in its anatomy. Various methods for atraumatic premolar extraction and for preserving the buccal cortical plate have been suggested in the past like use of periotomes, physics forceps etc. Following is the suggested novel technique for atraumatic premolar extractions which can be performed with routine forceps without any additional armamentarium.

Efficacy of the Atraumatic Physics Forceps Over Conventional Extraction Forceps in Extraction of Tooth-Does it Offer an Alternative in All Types of Extraction or Only can be Used in Few Selected Types of Extraction: A Comparative Study.

We conducted this study to evaluate the efficacy of physics forceps in dental extractions as compared with conventional forceps and as well as to evaluate its atraumatic point of view.Materials and Methods:A total of 200 healthy adult patients were included in the study who reported for dental extractions, divided into two groups each containing 100 patients. The patients were randomly allocated into either group by lottery method.Results:Operating time in the physics forceps group was found to be significantly reduced as well as lesser incidence of dry socket was noted which was statistically significant on the 2nd day postoperatively. However, incidence of root fracture, buccal plate fracture, and gingival lacerations were not found to be statistically significant but their occurrence was less in the physics forceps group as compared with the conventional forceps group.Conclusion:To conclude, we can say that extractions done by physics forceps results in significant reduction in unnecessary trauma as well as stress to both the operator and patient. The forceps is an atraumatic extraction system which is a boon for the profession, thereby reducing ridge deformities and preparing the patients for future prosthesis.

Atraumatic extractions-Indications and treatment modalities

This paper seeks to enumerate and explain the instruments used commonly for atraumatic extractions, their method of usage and identify their indications. The methodology includes review of journal articles on approaches, benefits and procedures for atraumatic extraction and their compilation. The methodology also includes a review of websites of manufacturers of atraumatic extraction devices and instruments. These sources help to identify the common means for carrying out atraumatic extractions and also the indications for the same. Implants continue to be an exceedingly accepted means to replace an extracted tooth. This may be done immediately following an extraction or at a later date subsequent to satisfactory wound healing. In both situations the need for an atraumatic extraction seems all the more pertinent. Extractions for orthodontic purposes requiring minimal trauma to the surrounding structures of a tooth, particularly the bone, call for a far more atraumatic procedure than the conventional tooth extraction. With the advent of physics forceps, periotomes, luxators piezoelectric instruments and root traction devices atraumatic extractions by preservation of the alveolar bone, the socket, gingival architecture and without trauma to the periodontium has become a necessary skill in the repertoire of the general dental practitioner. This facilitates better implant outcomes or better orthodontic therapy. Newer methods such as Endoscopically Assisted Root Splitting can be used for extractions without causing trauma to the alveolar bone. This can be done using a Storz-Hopkins support endoscope and enlargement of the canals using Lindemann burs followed by longitudinal root splitting and removal using Bein forceps or fragment removal if an implosion technique is used. However, one needs to keep in mind the duration required for such procedure and the cost of instruments required. These methods prevent unnecessary mucoperiosteal flap elevations, incisions and osteotomies thereby minimizing inflammation. To make dental practitioners embrace these procedures, inadequate literature availability and time limitations remain the biggest constraints.

Are Physics Forceps Less Traumatic than Conventional Forceps for Tooth Extraction? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.

This systematic review and meta-analysis studied the clinical outcomes with physics forceps compared to those with conventional forceps for closed dental extraction. A systematic literature search was performed to identify all the published randomized clinical trials that compared the relevant clinical outcomes with physics forceps to those with conventional forceps for closed dental extraction. A total of 11 studies were included. The adverse events were significantly lower with physics forceps (n = 48) compared to with conventional forceps (n = 120), with an odds ratio of 0.42 [0.25, 0.70], Z = 3.78 (p = 0.0002), and I2 = 21%. There were statistically significant differences in the incidence of GL (p = 0.04), and tooth or root fracture (p = 0.0009). Operating time was significantly lower in physics forceps than that of conventional forceps, mean difference (−20.13 (−30.11, −10.15)), Z = 3.78 (p = 0.0001), I2 = 79%. The available evidence is limited by a high risk of bias and low evidence certainty. Based on the current evidence, physics forceps might be better than the conventional extraction forceps in terms of the extraction duration, pain after extraction, trauma to both hard and soft tissue, and complications. Physics forceps are newer instruments that have not yet been introduced in the teaching of dental graduates. The introduction of physics forceps can be time saving, less invasive and reduce post-extraction complications.

Physics Forceps in Tooth Extraction—A Systematic Review of Randomized Controlled Trials

The present systematic review aims to evaluate the efficiency of Physics forceps over the conventional forceps for the extraction of a tooth. The study began with targeted electronic searches of MEDLINE, PubMed, Cochrane, Science Direct and Google Scholar databases. All selected articles were reviewed by four independent reviewers for eligibility. The Cochrane Risk of Bias tool was used to analyze the studies for bias. Due to heterogeneity of the selected studies, a meta-analysis of the current systematic review was not possible. A total of five studies were considered for the final analysis. The risk of bias showed high risk for all five included articles. Various parameters, such as fracture of the root, dry socket, healing, pain, postoperative infection, crown fractures, buccal bone fractures, extraction time, gingival and marginal bone loss, gingival laceration, bleeding and healing were assessed. Based on the data available, there is an insufficient quality of evidence to conclude the superiority of the Physics forceps over conventional forceps.

CLINICAL AND RADIOGRAPHIC EVALUATION OF INTENTIONAL REPLANTATION OF TEETH UTILIZING ATRAUMATIC EXTRACTION TECHNIQUE AND BIODENTIN AS ROOT END RESTORATIVE MATERIAL. AN IN VIVO STUDY

Aims: Aim is to evaluate the clinical and radiographic outcome of Intentional Replantation of teeth utilizing Atraumatic extraction technique and Biodentin as root end restorative material
 Materials and Methods: Any patients irrespective of age & sex who reported to the Department of Conservative Dentistry & Endodontics, D. J. College of Dental Sciences & Research with the post endodontic treatment periapical pathology where orthograde retreatment and apical surgery was unfeasible or declined by patients and where extraction be the last resort was selected for the procedure. Informed consent was taken. Retention and healed status without complications (periapical radiolucency, external root resorption, ankylosis, signs/symptoms, probing <6 mm) was recorded and analyzed with Kaplan-Meier survival analysis and Cox proportional hazard regression model (P < .05). Bivariate associations of the investigated variables with the main complications (ankylosis, periapical radiolucency, external root resorption) evaluated. 
 Results: Cumulative healed rates from 60% at 6 months to 92% at 12months seen. Complications leading to extraction observed in 1 of 15 attending teeth. The Kaplan-Meier survival function suggested an expected 1-year cumulative retention rate of 92%. Among the 15 teeth, 1 tooth with complication was due to persistent periapical radiolucency and mobility.
 Null hypothesis was that IR is to preserve the natural dentition, there by upholding the main goal of Conservative treatment.
 Conclusions: Within the limitations of this study, after analyzing the results and obtaining a complete follow up of 12 months radiographically and clinically, it can be concluded that Intentional replantation is an alternative treatment and should be included in the savior procedures as it has shown a success rate of 92%.
 Keywords: endodontic complications, intentional replantation, physics forceps, Biodentin

Comparative evaluation of efficacy of Physics Forceps versus conventional forceps in pediatric dental extractions: a prospective randomized study.

BackgroundThis study aimed to determine the efficacy of Physics Forceps in pediatric dental extractions.MethodsThis was a double-blind, randomized controlled trial with a parallel-arm design and identical allocation ratio (1:1). Children (n=104) were randomly divided into two groups for extraction of mandibular primary teeth (group I: Physics Forceps; group II: conventional forceps). The outcome variables assessed in the study were the time taken for extraction, pre- and postoperative anxiety (using RMS pictorial scale), incidence of fractured teeth, and postoperative pain on the first and third days (using the Wong-Baker faces pain scale).ResultsA significant reduction (P < 0.001) in intraoperative time, anxiety, and incidence of tooth fracture was confined to group I. The pain significantly reduced from the first to the third postoperative day in both groups, but the mean reduction in RMS scores in the physics forceps group was far better than that in the conventional forceps group.ConclusionPhysics Forceps aid in extraction of primary teeth with minimal trauma to supporting structures, as well as reducing anxiety in the pediatric population.

Assessment of Extraction Technique Using Physics Forceps and the Conventional Method : A Comparative Study

Assessment of Extraction Technique Using Physics Forceps and the Conventional Method : A Comparative Study

Principles of Exodontia.

Exodontia services comprise the largest portion of clinical practice for most oral and maxillofacial surgeons in the United States. This article is an overview of the principles of exodontia including the physics principles underlying the appropriate use of dental elevators and forceps. Failure to understand the instrumentation and the physics principles being used can cause prolonged operative time, iatrogenic injury to the patient, and unnecessary fatigue and/or injury to the provider. Advances in materials, technology, and innovative design have produced interesting new instruments for exodontia. New instruments including periotomes, piezosurgery, physics forceps, and vertical extraction systems are introduced and reviewed.

Physics Forceps vs Conventional Forceps in Dental Extraction: Literature Review

Physics Forceps vs Conventional Forceps in Dental Extraction: Literature Review

Use of Physics Forceps in Atraumatic Orthodontic Extractions of Bilateral Premolars: A Randomized Control Clinical Study.

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. 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. 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. 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. 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.