• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验

相似文献

1
Comparative Evaluation of Efficacy of Physics Forceps versus Conventional Forceps in Orthodontic Extractions: A Prospective Randomized Split Mouth Study.正畸拔牙中物理镊子与传统镊子疗效的比较评估:一项前瞻性随机双颌研究。
J Clin Diagn Res. 2016 Jul;10(7):ZC41-5. doi: 10.7860/JCDR/2016/17724.8160. Epub 2016 Jul 1.
2
Use of Physics Forceps in Atraumatic Orthodontic Extractions of Bilateral Premolars: A Randomized Control Clinical Study.物理镊子在双侧前磨牙无创伤正畸拔牙中的应用:一项随机对照临床研究。
J Maxillofac Oral Surg. 2020 Sep;19(3):347-354. doi: 10.1007/s12663-020-01347-6. Epub 2020 May 5.
3
Bilateral orthodontic extractions using physics versus conventional forceps among Indian patients.印度患者中使用物理器械与传统拔牙钳进行双侧正畸拔牙的情况。
Bioinformation. 2023 Jan 31;19(1):143-148. doi: 10.6026/97320630019143. eCollection 2023.
4
Evaluation and Comparison of Physics Forceps and Conventional Forceps in Bilateral Dental Extraction: A Randomized, Split-Mouth, Clinical Study.双侧牙拔除术中物理镊与传统镊的评估与比较:一项随机、分口、临床研究
Cureus. 2023 Apr 27;15(4):e38206. doi: 10.7759/cureus.38206. eCollection 2023 Apr.
5
Comparative evaluation of efficacy of physics forcep and conventional forceps for extraction of maxillary molars.物理拔牙钳与传统拔牙钳拔除上颌磨牙疗效的比较评估
Minerva Dent Oral Sci. 2024 Apr;73(2):75-80. doi: 10.23736/S2724-6329.23.04740-X. Epub 2023 Jun 16.
6
Efficacy of the Atraumatic Physics Forceps Over Conventional Extraction Forceps in Extraction of Tooth-Does it Offer an Alternative in All Types of Extraction or Only can be Used in Few Selected Types of Extraction: A Comparative Study.无创物理镊子与传统拔牙钳在牙齿拔除中的疗效比较——它是能为所有类型的拔牙提供替代方案,还是仅适用于少数特定类型的拔牙:一项对比研究
J Pharm Bioallied Sci. 2022 Jul;14(Suppl 1):S859-S862. doi: 10.4103/jpbs.jpbs_27_22. Epub 2022 Jul 13.
7
Comparison Between Physics and Conventional Forceps in Simple Dental Extraction.简单牙拔除术中物理方法与传统拔牙钳的比较
J Maxillofac Oral Surg. 2015 Dec;14(4):949-55. doi: 10.1007/s12663-015-0765-6. Epub 2015 Mar 21.
8
The Efficacy of Physics Forceps for Exodontia: A Systematic Review.物理拔牙钳的疗效:一项系统评价。
J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2021 May;79(5):989.e1-989.e13. doi: 10.1016/j.joms.2020.12.033. Epub 2020 Dec 30.
9
Split-mouth comparison of physics forceps and extraction forceps in orthodontic extraction of upper premolars.正畸拔除上颌前磨牙时物理镊子与拔牙镊子的分口比较
Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2014 Dec;52(10):e137-40. doi: 10.1016/j.bjoms.2014.06.013. Epub 2014 Jul 8.
10
Comparative evaluation of efficacy of Physics Forceps versus conventional forceps in pediatric dental extractions: a prospective randomized study.物理镊子与传统镊子在儿童牙齿拔除术中的疗效比较评估:一项前瞻性随机研究。
J Dent Anesth Pain Med. 2021 Dec;21(6):547-556. doi: 10.17245/jdapm.2021.21.6.547. Epub 2021 Nov 26.

引用本文的文献

1
Bone Loss and Soft Tissue Loss Following Orthodontic Extraction Using Conventional Forceps versus Physics Forceps: A Prospective Split Mouth Study.使用传统拔牙钳与物理拔牙钳进行正畸拔牙后的骨组织和软组织损失:一项前瞻性双侧对照研究。
J Maxillofac Oral Surg. 2025 Feb;24(1):301-306. doi: 10.1007/s12663-024-02165-w. Epub 2024 Apr 3.
2
Loading rate, geometry, and damage state influence vertical extraction biomechanics in an ex vivo swine dental model.加载速率、几何形状和损伤状态会影响体外猪牙模型中的垂直拔出生物力学。
Front Bioeng Biotechnol. 2025 Jan 7;12:1491834. doi: 10.3389/fbioe.2024.1491834. eCollection 2024.
3
Minimally Invasive Extraction System Benex-Clinical Evaluation and Comparison.微创拔牙系统Benex-临床评估与比较
Dent J (Basel). 2024 Jul 24;12(8):234. doi: 10.3390/dj12080234.
4
Bilateral orthodontic extractions using physics versus conventional forceps among Indian patients.印度患者中使用物理器械与传统拔牙钳进行双侧正畸拔牙的情况。
Bioinformation. 2023 Jan 31;19(1):143-148. doi: 10.6026/97320630019143. eCollection 2023.
5
Evaluation and Comparison of Physics Forceps and Conventional Forceps in Bilateral Dental Extraction: A Randomized, Split-Mouth, Clinical Study.双侧牙拔除术中物理镊与传统镊的评估与比较:一项随机、分口、临床研究
Cureus. 2023 Apr 27;15(4):e38206. doi: 10.7759/cureus.38206. eCollection 2023 Apr.
6
Efficacy of the Atraumatic Physics Forceps Over Conventional Extraction Forceps in Extraction of Tooth-Does it Offer an Alternative in All Types of Extraction or Only can be Used in Few Selected Types of Extraction: A Comparative Study.无创物理镊子与传统拔牙钳在牙齿拔除中的疗效比较——它是能为所有类型的拔牙提供替代方案,还是仅适用于少数特定类型的拔牙:一项对比研究
J Pharm Bioallied Sci. 2022 Jul;14(Suppl 1):S859-S862. doi: 10.4103/jpbs.jpbs_27_22. Epub 2022 Jul 13.
7
Are Physics Forceps Less Traumatic than Conventional Forceps for Tooth Extraction? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.在牙齿拔除中,物理镊子比传统镊子创伤性更小吗?一项随机对照试验的系统评价和荟萃分析。
Dent J (Basel). 2022 Jan 31;10(2):21. doi: 10.3390/dj10020021.
8
Comparative evaluation of efficacy of Physics Forceps versus conventional forceps in pediatric dental extractions: a prospective randomized study.物理镊子与传统镊子在儿童牙齿拔除术中的疗效比较评估:一项前瞻性随机研究。
J Dent Anesth Pain Med. 2021 Dec;21(6):547-556. doi: 10.17245/jdapm.2021.21.6.547. Epub 2021 Nov 26.
9
Comparison of the efficiency of arm force versus arm force plus wrist movement in closed method extractions an observational study.闭合式拔牙法中手臂力量与手臂力量加手腕运动效率的比较:一项观察性研究
Natl J Maxillofac Surg. 2021 May-Aug;12(2):250-254. doi: 10.4103/njms.NJMS_212_20. Epub 2021 Jul 15.
10
Use of Physics Forceps in Atraumatic Orthodontic Extractions of Bilateral Premolars: A Randomized Control Clinical Study.物理镊子在双侧前磨牙无创伤正畸拔牙中的应用:一项随机对照临床研究。
J Maxillofac Oral Surg. 2020 Sep;19(3):347-354. doi: 10.1007/s12663-020-01347-6. Epub 2020 May 5.

本文引用的文献

1
Split-mouth comparison of physics forceps and extraction forceps in orthodontic extraction of upper premolars.正畸拔除上颌前磨牙时物理镊子与拔牙镊子的分口比较
Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2014 Dec;52(10):e137-40. doi: 10.1016/j.bjoms.2014.06.013. Epub 2014 Jul 8.
2
Atraumatic vertical tooth extraction: a proof of principle clinical study of a novel system.微创垂直拔牙:一种新型系统的原理临床研究。
Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol. 2013 Nov;116(5):e303-10. doi: 10.1016/j.oooo.2011.11.037. Epub 2012 Jul 3.
3
Complications of exodontia: a retrospective study.拔牙术的并发症:一项回顾性研究。
Indian J Dent Res. 2011 Sep-Oct;22(5):633-8. doi: 10.4103/0970-9290.93447.
4
Exodontia: tips and techniques for better outcomes.拔牙术:实现更佳效果的技巧与方法
Dent Clin North Am. 2012 Jan;56(1):245-66, x. doi: 10.1016/j.cden.2011.07.002.
5
Technological advances in extraction techniques and outpatient oral surgery.拔牙技术与门诊口腔外科手术的技术进展。
Dent Clin North Am. 2011 Jul;55(3):501-13, viii. doi: 10.1016/j.cden.2011.02.008. Epub 2011 Apr 3.
6
Atraumatic extractions: a biomechanical rationale.无创拔牙:生物力学原理
Dent Today. 2008 Aug;27(8):98, 100-1.
7
Extraction defect assessment, classification, and management.拔牙窝缺损的评估、分类及处理
J Calif Dent Assoc. 2005 Nov;33(11):853-63.
8
Some early dental extraction instruments including the pelican, bird or axe?一些早期的拔牙器械,包括鹈鹕形、鸟形或斧形的?
Aust Dent J. 2002 Jun;47(2):90-3. doi: 10.1111/j.1834-7819.2002.tb00310.x.

正畸拔牙中物理镊子与传统镊子疗效的比较评估:一项前瞻性随机双颌研究。

Comparative Evaluation of Efficacy of Physics Forceps versus Conventional Forceps in Orthodontic Extractions: A Prospective Randomized Split Mouth Study.

作者信息

Patel Harsh S, Managutti Anil M, Menat Shailesh, Agarwal Arvind, Shah Dishan, Patel Jigar

机构信息

Post Graduate, Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Narsinhbhai Patel Dental College and Hospital , Visnagar, Gujarat, India .

Professor and Head, Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Narsinhbhai Patel Dental College and Hospital , Visnagar, Gujarat, India .

出版信息

J Clin Diagn Res. 2016 Jul;10(7):ZC41-5. doi: 10.7860/JCDR/2016/17724.8160. Epub 2016 Jul 1.

DOI:10.7860/JCDR/2016/17724.8160
PMID:27630951
原文链接:https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5020268/
Abstract

INTRODUCTION

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. Various instruments have been described to perform atraumatic extractions which can prevent damage to the paradental structures. Recently developed physics forceps is one of the instruments which is claimed to perform atraumatic extractions.

AIM

The aim of the present study was to compare the efficacy of physics forceps with conventional forceps in terms of operating time, prevention of marginal bone loss & soft tissue loss, postoperative pain and postoperative complications following bilateral premolar extractions for orthodontic purpose.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

In this prospective split-mouth study, outcomes of the 2 groups (n = 42 premolars) requiring extraction of premolars for orthodontic treatment purpose using Physics forceps and Conventional forceps were compared. Clinical outcomes in form of time taken, loss of buccal soft tissue and buccal cortical plate based on extraction defect classification system, postoperative pain and other complication associated with extraction were recorded and compared.

RESULTS

Statistically significant reduction in the operating time was noted in physics forceps group. Marginal bone loss and soft tissue loss was also significantly lesser in physics forceps group when compared to conventional forceps group. However, there was no statistically significant difference in severity of postoperative pain between both groups.

CONCLUSION

The results of the present study suggest that physics forceps was more efficient in reducing operating time and prevention of marginal bone loss & soft tissue loss when compared to conventional forceps in orthodontically indicated premolar extractions.

摘要

引言

拔牙是牙科最常进行的操作之一。这通常是一个创伤性操作,常常导致牙槽骨和周围软组织立即遭到破坏和丧失。已有多种器械被描述用于进行无创拔牙,可防止对牙周结构造成损伤。最近研发的物理镊子就是据称能进行无创拔牙的器械之一。

目的

本研究的目的是比较物理镊子和传统镊子在正畸目的双侧前磨牙拔除术中的操作时间、预防边缘骨丢失和软组织丢失、术后疼痛及术后并发症方面的疗效。

材料与方法

在这项前瞻性双侧对照研究中,比较了两组(n = 42颗前磨牙)使用物理镊子和传统镊子进行正畸治疗目的前磨牙拔除的结果。记录并比较了以拔牙缺陷分类系统为依据的操作时间、颊侧软组织和颊侧皮质骨板丢失、术后疼痛以及与拔牙相关的其他并发症等临床结果。

结果

物理镊子组的操作时间在统计学上显著缩短。与传统镊子组相比,物理镊子组的边缘骨丢失和软组织丢失也显著更少。然而,两组术后疼痛的严重程度在统计学上无显著差异。

结论

本研究结果表明,在正畸需要拔除前磨牙时,与传统镊子相比,物理镊子在缩短操作时间以及预防边缘骨丢失和软组织丢失方面更有效。