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.