Split-mouth comparison of Physics forceps and extraction forceps in orthodontic extraction of upper premolars

Hariharan, Samyuktha; Narayanan, Vinod; Soh, Chen Loong

doi:10.1016/j.bjoms.2014.06.013

Cited by 25 publications

(37 citation statements)

References 8 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This technique was chosen since it apparently is less damaging to the tooth amongst the modern so‐called atraumatic techniques (Muska et al , Sharma et al ). These atraumatic techniques are designed to be less damaging to the bone than to the teeth, since they usually involve the use of devices to grip or screw the tooth firmly, which is certainly an undesired source of stress to the root (Hariharan et al ), and, for these reasons, were not considered in the present study.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Dentinal microcracks on freshly extracted teeth: the impact of the extraction technique

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Aim To evaluate the incidence of root dentinal microcracks after two extraction techniques through micro‐computed tomographic (micro‐CT) analysis. Methodology Thirty pairs of premolars, extracted for orthodontic reasons, were assigned to two experimental groups, following a split‐mouth design (n = 30): traumatic technique group (TTG) – teeth extracted following a conventional protocol using forceps, and an atraumatic technique group (ATG) – teeth extracted following an atraumatic technique protocol in which the root was gently detached from the periodontal ligament using a periotome. All teeth were immediately immersed in distilled water and scanned in a micro‐CT device within 72 h following the extraction. The assessment of the images was completed on cross‐section images by two masked evaluators. The Mann–Whitney test was used to assess the significant differences between the groups regarding the number of cross‐sections displaying microcracks whilst the Fischer’s exact test was used to assess differences in the frequency of specimens with defects (P < 0.05). Results A total of 52 750 micro‐CT cross‐sectional images were evaluated. A total of 352 cross‐sections had at least one dentinal defect. Microcracks were observed in five teeth of the TTG group (n = 352 slices) and in two teeth of the ATG group (n = 103 slices). The statistical analysis used was unable to detect a significant difference between the groups in terms of the number of dentinal microcracks (P = 0.233) and in the frequency of teeth displaying microcracks (P = 0.424). Conclusion A small number of sound teeth without endodontic treatment had dentinal microcracks regardless of the extraction technique applied. No difference was noticed between the traumatic and atraumatic techniques in the incidence of microcracks.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Dentinal microcracks on freshly extracted teeth: the impact of the extraction technique

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…These findings are similar to those reported by various authors in the past. [1][2][3]13,14 Hariharan et al 15 compared outcome variables (operative complications, inflammatory complications, and operating time) in patients undergoing orthodontic extraction of upper premolars with the Physics Forceps or the universal extraction forceps. A split-mouth clinical trial was conducted to compare the outcomes of the two groups (n = 54 premolars).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Physics Forceps vs Conventional Forceps in Extraction of Maxillary 1st Molar

Satish¹,

Surana²,

Thakur³

et al. 2016

IJOCR

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Regev et al [15] tried orthodontic elastics for extraction of teeth in bisphosphonate treated patients and they were able to remove the tooth atraumatically. Hariharan et al [16] did a split-mouth comparison of physical forceps and extraction forceps in orthodontic extraction of upper premolars and they concluded that the physical forceps group had lower visual analogue scores for pain in first post-operative day and there were no other significant differences between the two groups in operative complications, inflammatory complications and operating time. Karl Schumacher (Southampton, PA) has introduced a new surgical protocol using apical instrumentation that allows for the preservation of the hard and soft tissues by focusing on occlusal movement of the tooth during extraction.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparing the Efficiency of Two Different Extraction Techniques in Removal of Maxillary Third Molars: A Randomized Controlled Trial

Edward

Aziz

Usha

et al. 2016

J. Maxillofac. Oral Surg.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Split-mouth comparison of Physics forceps and extraction forceps in orthodontic extraction of upper premolars

Cited by 25 publications

References 8 publications

Dentinal microcracks on freshly extracted teeth: the impact of the extraction technique

Dentinal microcracks on freshly extracted teeth: the impact of the extraction technique

Physics Forceps vs Conventional Forceps in Extraction of Maxillary 1st Molar

Comparing the Efficiency of Two Different Extraction Techniques in Removal of Maxillary Third Molars: A Randomized Controlled Trial

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About