ORIGINAL ARTICLE   

Minerva Dental and Oral Science 2024 April;73(2):75-80

DOI: 10.23736/S2724-6329.23.04740-X

Copyright © 2023 EDIZIONI MINERVA MEDICA

language: English

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

Tushar N. BHOSALE, Kalyani BHATE ✉, Sherwin SAMUEL, George JACOB

Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Dr. D. Y. Patil Dental College and Hospital, Dr.D. Y. Patil Vidyapeeth, Pimpri, Pune, India

BACKGROUND: 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.
METHODS: 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: 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.
CONCLUSIONS: Hence, oral surgeons as well as general practitioner should adapt the use of physics forceps in routine extractions.

KEY WORDS: Surgical instruments; Molar; Tooth extraction