Comparison Between Physics and Conventional Forceps in Changing Socket Configuration After Tooth Extraction

Section: Research Paper

Abstract

Aims: The present study aimed to evaluate physics forceps and conventional forceps with regard to their impact on dimensional changes of the tooth socket, specifically buccolingual and mesiodistal dimensional changes, immediately after tooth extraction.


Materials and Methods: A prospective randomized clinical study of 48 patients requiring posterior tooth extractions was undertaken. The patients were randomly divided into two equal groups: one group received extractions using conventional forceps, and the other group received extractions using physics forceps. Immediately after tooth extractions, the buccolingual and mesiodistal dimensional changes of the tooth sockets were measured using calibrated plastic rulers and were compared with the root trunk dimensional changes. Socket dimensional changes were calculated and statistically analyzed using an independent samples t-test with significance set at P ≤ 0.05.


Results: The results of this study showed that the dimensional changes of the tooth sockets using conventional forceps were greater than those using physics forceps, specifically concerning buccolingual dimensional changes, which were 1.667 ± 0.916 mm for conventional forceps and 1.208 ± 0.414 mm for physics forceps, with a statistically significant difference of P = 0.031. On the other hand, there were no statistically significant differences in dimensional changes of tooth sockets using both forceps concerning mesiodistal dimensional changes, which were 0.729 ± 0.389 mm for conventional forceps and 0.750 ± 0.329 mm (P = 0.842). Root fractures were only recorded in the conventional forceps group, with no complications recorded for the extractions in both groups.


Conclusion: Physics forceps were associated with significantly lower buccalingual socket expansion compared to conventional forceps, implying better bone preservation. The changes in the mesiodistal direction were comparable for both extraction methods used. The physics forceps could be considered a better alternative for situations where alveolar bone preservation is critical, for example, in preparation for implant placement in the future.

References

  1. Samad AA, Ahmed JM, Ali HM, Shihab O, Haider A, Karpavicius D. Extraction Socket Seal Technique for Socket Preservation after Tooth Extraction: An Innovative Approach. EDJ [Internet]. 2024 Jun. 6 DOI: https://doi.org/10.15218/edj.2024.12
  2. Marina (2020) The Ancient History of Oral Surgery - Josey Lane Dentistry, Josey Lane Dentistry: Dentist in Carrollton, TX. Available at: https://joseylanedentistry.com/blog/the-ancient-history-of-oral-surgery/
  3. McKenzie, W.S. (2020) ‘Principles of Exodontia’, Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery Clinics of North America, 32(4), pp. 511–517.
  4. El-Kenawy, M.H. and Ahmed, W.M.S. (2015) ‘Comparison Between Physics and Conventional Forceps in Simple Dental Extraction’, Journal of Maxillofacial and Oral Surgery, 14(4), pp. 949–955.
  5. Dym, H. and Weiss, A. (2012) ‘Exodontia: Tips and Techniques for Better Outcomes’, Dental Clinics of North America, 56(1), pp. 245–266.
  6. Weiss, A., Stern, A. and Dym, H. (2011) ‘Technological Advances in Extraction Techniques and Outpatient Oral Surgery’, Dental Clinics, 55(3), pp. 501–513.
  7. Hariharan, S., Narayanan, V. and Soh, C.L. (2014) ‘Split-mouth comparison of Physics forceps and extraction forceps in orthodontic extraction of upper premolars’, British Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, 52(10), pp. e137–e140.
  8. Kubilius, M., Kubilius, R. and Gleiznys, A. (2012) ‘The preservation of alveolar bone ridge during tooth extraction’, Stomatologija, Baltic Dental and Maxillofacial Journal, 14(1), pp. 3–11.
  9. Araújo MG, Lindhe J. Dimensional ridge alterations following tooth extraction: an experimental study in the dog. J Clin Periodontol. 2005;32(2):212–218.
  10. Schropp L, Wenzel A, Kostopoulos L, Karring T. Bone healing and soft tissue contour changes following single-tooth extraction: a clinical and radiographic 12-month prospective study. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent. 2003;23(4):313–323.
  11. Howe GL. Minor Oral Surgery. 3rd ed. Bristol: Wright; 1997.
  12. Bartee BK. Extraction site reconstruction for alveolar ridge preservation. Part 1: Rationale and materials selection. J Oral Implantol. 2001;27(4):187–193.
  13. Misch CE, Perez HM. Atraumatic extractions: a biomechanical rationale. Dent Today. 2008;27(8):100–107.
  14. Kim S, Kim Y. Atraumatic tooth extraction using physics forceps: clinical and biomechanical considerations. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2014;72(6):1113–1118.
  15. Samad, A. A., Haider, A. A., & Shihab, O. I. (2016). Comparison between flapless and flap dental implant surgery: A clinical and radiographic study. Zanco Journal of Medical Sciences (Zanco J Med Sci), 20(2), 1267 _ 1271. https://doi.org/10.15218/zjms.2016.0019
  16. Samad, A., Diederich, H., & Ahmed, J. (2024). A Novel Technique for the Treatment of Severely Atrophied Maxilla with Immediate Dental Implant Loading. Al-Rafidain Dental Journal, 24(1), 130–141. https://doi.org/10.33899/rdenj.2024.148155.1251
  17. Shihab, O. I., Samad, A. A., Ali, H. Z., Omer, O. A., & Haider, A. A. (2017). Osseointegration of dental implants without primary stability: an experimental study in sheep. Zanco Journal of Medical Sciences (Zanco J Med Sci), 21(1), 1616–1618. https://doi.org/10.15218/zjms.2017.011
  18. Tan WL, Wong TL, Wong MC, Lang NP. A systematic review of post-extractional alveolar hard and soft tissue dimensional changes in humans. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2012;23(Suppl 5):1–21.

Identifiers

Download this PDF file
##submission.supplementaryFiles##

Statistics

Copyright and Licensing