Abdelwahab Mohamed, Nørholt Sven Erik, Taneja Pankaj
Speciality Dentist in Oral Surgery, Department of Oral Surgery, Birmingham Dental Hospital, Birmingham, UK.
Clinical Professor and Consultant Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeon, Section of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery and Oral Pathology, Department of Dentistry and Oral Health, Aarhus University, Aarhus C, Denmark; and Tand-, Mund-, Kæbekirurgisk Klinik, Aarhus University Hospital, Aarhus C, Denmark.
J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2021 May;79(5):989.e1-989.e13. doi: 10.1016/j.joms.2020.12.033. Epub 2020 Dec 30.
The aim of this study was to systematically review the literature to investigate the efficacy of physics forceps compared with conventional forceps for routine exodontia.
A systematic review was conducted using Embase, MEDLINE, PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, Dentistry and Oral Sciences Source, Cochrane databases and Google Scholar. Primary outcomes investigated were buccal cortical plate fracture and gingival laceration and secondary outcomes included bleeding, delayed healing, ease of technique, pain, tooth fracture, operating time, and postoperative infection.
Eight randomized controlled trials were included in the review. One study identified a significant difference in buccal cortical plate fracture (P = .001), and 3 studies reported a significant reduction in gingival laceration (all P ≤ .032) from using physics forceps, compared with conventional forceps. Secondary outcomes of bleeding (K = 2) and pain (K = 3), on day 1, were significantly reduced when using the physics forceps (P ≤ .001 and P ≤ .03, respectively). There were no significant differences or inconclusive results found for tooth fracture, operating time, ease of technique, postoperative infection, and delayed healing.
The review identified that only a limited number of included studies were reported to provide a more atraumatic approach for routine exodontia in terms of buccal cortical plate fracture, gingival laceration, postoperative pain, and bleeding, when compared with conventional forceps. Most studies reported no significant differences. However, studies were associated with a high risk of bias and selective outcome reporting.
本研究旨在系统回顾文献，以调查物理镊子与传统镊子在常规拔牙术中的疗效。
使用Embase、MEDLINE、PubMed、Scopus、科学网、牙科学与口腔科学资源库、Cochrane数据库和谷歌学术进行系统回顾。研究的主要结局指标为颊侧皮质骨板骨折和牙龈撕裂伤，次要结局指标包括出血、愈合延迟、操作难易程度、疼痛、牙齿折断、手术时间和术后感染。
该综述纳入了八项随机对照试验。一项研究发现使用物理镊子与传统镊子相比，颊侧皮质骨板骨折存在显著差异（P = 0.001），三项研究报告使用物理镊子后牙龈撕裂伤显著减少（所有P≤0.032）。使用物理镊子时，第1天的次要结局指标出血（K = 2）和疼痛（K = 3）显著减少（分别为P≤0.001和P≤0.03）。在牙齿折断、手术时间、操作难易程度、术后感染和愈合延迟方面，未发现显著差异或结果不明确。
该综述发现，与传统镊子相比，在颊侧皮质骨板骨折、牙龈撕裂伤、术后疼痛和出血方面，只有少数纳入研究报告物理镊子能为常规拔牙术提供更微创的方法。大多数研究报告无显著差异。然而，这些研究存在较高的偏倚风险和选择性结果报告问题。
