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

Abstract

The subsequent bone loss that occurs after extraction is inevitable.The morphologic changes seen following
tooth extraction is due to the body deactivating the system caused by disuse atrophy.1Extraction using
conventional elevators and forceps involves the separation of the periodontal ligament attachments,
expansion of the alveolus and lifting of the tooth out of the socket with the forcep beaks which invites
unnecessary trauma including broken roots and bone, inflammation and post operative pain, loss of tissue,
and stress for the patient and dental team.2
Nevertheless, These can be easily reduced through current site
preservation techniques such as using the ‘Physics ForcepsTM’ that can reduce the degree of damage and
extent of resorption that physiologically occurs following tooth extraction by utilising just two opposing
forces. These two forces eliminates the need for the third force (the clinician’s arm) and thereby the risk of
fracturing the dental structures would be dramatically reduced.In addition to this the extraction procedure
can be much more comfortable to the patient.3
The following study aimed at assessing the amount of extraction defect caused by the conventional extraction
technique and the physics forceps design which employs a new extraction technique.In this study ,100
patients indicated for extraction were categorised in two equal groups using the two techniques.
Both the extraction defects in these groups was assessed with the use of an Atraumatic Safe Extraction
Score, Extraction Defect Sounding Classification System, Visual Analog Scale and the Amount Of Strain
experienced by the operator.
The results showed that there was significant success with tooth extraction using the Physics forceps TM
as compared with the conventional technique. Moreover the results indicated that the Physics ForcepsTM
causes less bone defect , reduced operator strain and minimal discomfort to the patient than the conventional
technique.