Sangra Vidhi, Hemanth Kumar H R, Singh Arundhati, Singh Sandeep, Akhilasiri Godana, Agarwal Vivek
Consultant Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeon at Pulse Hospital, Jammu, Jammu and Kashmir, India.
Department of Dentistry, Karwar Institute of Medical Sciences, Karwar, Karnataka, India.
Bioinformation. 2023 Jan 31;19(1):143-148. doi: 10.6026/97320630019143. eCollection 2023.
It is of interest to assess whether or not physics forceps are superior to traditional forceps for the extraction of premolar teeth in orthodontic procedures. Tooth and buccal bone fractures, as well as extraction time, lacerated gingiva, postoperative discomfort, and infection, were all measured in this research of both types of forceps extraction. Twenty individuals who need orthodontic extraction on both jaws were enrolled in the research. One arch's premolars were removed in two appointments, the first using Physics forceps and the second using conventional ones. The subsequent assignment included extraction from the obverse arch. Intraoperative evaluations included assessments of factors such as tooth and buccal bone fractures, surgical time, and gingival lacerations; postoperative assessments of pain and infection were conducted on days 1, 3, and 7. With physics forceps, the average time to remove a patient's mandible was 86.55 seconds, whereas traditional forceps required just 35.70 seconds. Using traditional forceps, the average pain score was 0.865 on day one after surgery, but with physics forceps, it was 3.30. The use of physics forceps resulted in one buccal bone fracture out of twenty premolar extractions. That so, no meaningful statistical change was seen. There was no tooth damage or post-operative infection with either set of forceps, it was found. Each forceps caused a Grade I laceration to the gingiva. The average time required removing a maxillary using physics forceps was 224.05 seconds, whereas the time required doing it with conventional forceps was 141.50 seconds. On a Visual Analogue Scale (VAS), the average first-day pain after surgery using physics forceps was 4.90, whereas using traditional forceps resulted in just 3.15. The difference between using physics forceps and regular forceps was statistically significant by the third postoperative day (2.05 vs 0.75). There was a statistically insignificant increase in the occurrence of buccal bone fracture and tooth fracture while using physics forceps. Both forceps and scissors caused just grade I lacerations, and there was no postoperative infection. These findings suggest that the use of physics forceps, as opposed to conventional forceps, may significantly lengthen the time required to remove orthodontic premolars on both sides of the mouth. Non-significant results were also found for additional criteria such as buccal bone fracture, tooth fracture, gingival laceration, and post-operative discomfort. When it comes to orthodontic premolar extraction, this research found that traditional forceps performed better than modern forceps across a range of measures, including intraoperative time and postoperative discomfort.
评估在正畸手术中，物理镊子在拔除前磨牙方面是否优于传统镊子是很有意义的。在这项关于两种镊子拔牙的研究中，测量了牙齿和颊骨骨折情况、拔牙时间、牙龈撕裂、术后不适和感染情况。该研究招募了20名需要上下颌正畸拔牙的个体。在两次就诊中拔除一侧牙弓的前磨牙，第一次使用物理镊子，第二次使用传统镊子。后续任务包括拔除另一侧牙弓的牙齿。术中评估包括对牙齿和颊骨骨折、手术时间和牙龈撕裂等因素的评估；术后在第1、3和7天对疼痛和感染进行评估。使用物理镊子拔除患者下颌牙齿的平均时间为86.55秒，而传统镊子仅需35.70秒。使用传统镊子，术后第一天的平均疼痛评分为0.865，而使用物理镊子时为3.30。在20颗前磨牙拔除中，使用物理镊子导致1例颊骨骨折。即便如此，未观察到有意义的统计学变化。结果发现，两组镊子均未造成牙齿损伤或术后感染。每组镊子均导致牙龈I级撕裂伤。使用物理镊子拔除上颌牙齿的平均时间为224.05秒，而使用传统镊子所需时间为141.50秒。在视觉模拟量表（VAS）上，使用物理镊子术后第一天的平均疼痛评分为4.90，而使用传统镊子仅为3.15。术后第三天，使用物理镊子和传统镊子的差异具有统计学意义（2.05对0.75）。使用物理镊子时，颊骨骨折和牙齿骨折的发生率有统计学上不显著的增加。镊子和剪刀均仅造成I级撕裂伤，且无术后感染。这些发现表明，与传统镊子相比，使用物理镊子可能会显著延长拔除口腔两侧正畸前磨牙所需的时间。在颊骨骨折、牙齿骨折、牙龈撕裂和术后不适等其他标准方面，也发现了无显著差异的结果。在正畸前磨牙拔除方面，本研究发现，在包括术中时间和术后不适等一系列指标上，传统镊子比现代镊子表现更好。
