Skip to main content
OpenTrials
Completed

NCT Number: NCT04875650

Physics Forceps vs Conventional Forceps in Extraction of Mandibular Molars

Our study compared two different forceps for extraction of mandibular molars, the conventional extraction forceps and the Physics forceps. We assesed the relative pain score, patient satisfaction, success of extraction, incidence of alveolar plate fracture and soft tissue healing; post extraction. Our results found statistical significance in comparison of both forceps under relative pain score, patient satisfaction and soft tissue healing post extraction.

Completed

Looking for future studies?

Notify Me

Key information

Conditions

Tooth Extraction

Age range

18 year–55 year

Sex eligibility

All sexes

Study type

Interventional

Phase

Not applicable

Primary location

Melaka Manipal Medical College

Malacca, 75150, Malaysia

About this study

Abstract

  • INTRODUCTION/ BACKGROUND Tooth extractions are commonly done with conventional forceps. Recent advances like physics forceps help in atraumatic extractions by preserving the buccal plate, having less pain and better gingival healing. The buccal portion of the forceps is a plastic covered bumper which prevents reflection of buccal gingiva and buccal plate fracture. This is the first such comparison study to measure gingival healing in mandibular molar region with D2 bone quality.
  • OBJECTIVE To compare the efficacy of Physics Forceps and Conventional Forceps in extraction of mandibular molars by randomly dividing the patients in two groups. The efficacy is determined by comparing the success of extraction, relative pain score, incidence of alveolar fracture, patient satisfaction and soft tissue healing on 3rd post-operative day.
  • METHODOLOGY Patients who were indicated for extraction were included in the study. They were divided into two groups of 10 by double blinded randomization. Local Anesthesia was administered and the extraction was carried out using either Physics or Conventional forceps. Post extraction, the pain score was assessed using the VAS. Along with these, the gingival healing, success of extraction and alveolar plate fracture was assessed by the subject expert on the 3rd day post-operative day.

Who can participate

Healthy volunteers accepted: Yes

Only the study team can determine whether someone qualifies for participation.

Inclusion criteria

  • Patients between 18-55 years
  • Mandibular molar teeth indicated for extractions with gingival index 1.

Exclusion criteria

  • Patients with uncontrolled systemic diseases, that compromise dental extraction
  • Mandibular 3rd Molars
  • Grade 2 and 3 mobile teeth
  • Grossly decayed mandibular molars

Treatment and study plan

Extraction of Mandibular Molar using Physics Forceps

Procedure

Extraction of mandibular molars using physics forceps

Extraction of Mandibular Molar using Conventional Forceps

Procedure

Extraction of mandibular molars using conventional forceps

Primary outcomes

  1. Relative Pain Score

    Time frame: Day 1

    Use of a Visual Analogue Scale with 0 meaning no pain and 100 meaning severe pain

  2. Soft Tissue Healing Post Extraction

    Time frame: Day 3

    Soft Tissue Healing Index by Landry et al.

  3. Patient Satisfaction

    Time frame: Day 1

    4 point likert scale where 1 is very dissatisfied and 4 is very satisfied

  4. Success of Extraction

    Time frame: Day 1

    1 is Failure, 2 is limited success with osteotomy, 3 is limited success with root fracture, 4 is limited success with apical fracture and 5 is complete success

  5. Incidence of Alveolar Bone Fracture

    Time frame: Day 1

    Fracture 1 and No fracture 0

Sponsors and collaborators

Lead sponsor

Melaka Manipal Medical College

Other

Registry information

Official study title

Comparison of Physics Forceps and Conventional Forceps in Extraction of Mandibular Molars: A Double-Blinded Randomized Controlled Trial

Important dates

Study start
2020
Primary completion
2021
Study completion
2021
First posted
May 6, 2021
Registry last updated
May 6, 2021

OpenTrials presents study information sourced from ClinicalTrials.gov. The official registry record should be consulted for the latest information.

View the official ClinicalTrials.gov record (opens in a new tab)

This listing is for discovery and informational purposes only. It is not medical advice, does not guarantee that a study is recruiting, and does not determine eligibility. Contact the study team and a qualified healthcare professional when considering participation.

Related clinical trials

Published trials that share one or more normalized conditions with this study.