Evidence Hub

Clinical and Radiographic Comparison of Two Minimally Invasive Tooth Extraction Systems

ClinicalTrials.gov · COMPLETED, 2023

116 participants

Abstract

The aim of the study is to compare the effectiveness of the vertical extraction system Benex and Physics forceps with the conventional extraction tools (extraction forceps and elevators) in the early wound healing period after tooth extraction, as means for minimally invasive tooth extraction.

All patients aged 18 years and over who require closed tooth extraction with good oral hygiene were eligible for participation.

Participants were randomly allocated to tooth extraction with either Benex, Physics forceps or conventional extraction tools using box randomization. Patients are followed up during the recovery period to assess pain and early wound healing, while at the time of extraction, success and buccal cortical plate fracture were evaluated.

Conditions: Tooth Extraction Status Nos.

Primary outcome: Extraction success; Alveolar bone buccal cortical plate preservation; VAS pain score; Early wound healing.

Enrollment: 116 participants.

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a randomized trial, done in people. Its evidence level is 2 of 5 (High · randomized trial). Randomized trials of a reasonable size are the strongest single-study design. Reported size: 116 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free