Comparative Evaluation of Physics and Conventional Forceps in Mandibular Primary Molar Extraction: A Randomized Split-Mouth Trial
Abstract
Purpose: To evaluate and compare the efficacy of physics forceps versus conventional forceps in primary mandibular second molar extractions among children aged 7 to 10 years of age. Methods: A randomized split-mouth trial was conducted with children requiring bilateral primary mandibular second molar extractions. Outcomes assessed included extraction time, tooth fracture, anxiety, and complications. Results: Fifty children participated. Physics forceps significantly reduced extraction time (mean difference=7.7 seconds, 95 percent confidence interval= -11.5 to -3.9; PPP=0.05). No post-operative complications occurred. Conclusions: Physics forceps shortened extraction time, reduced anxiety and lowered fracture incidence, making them advantageous for pediatric dental extractions.
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.
Read the paper
Related studies
- Preliminary Toxicity Analysis of 3DCRT versus IMRT on the High Dose Arm of the RTOG 0126 Prostate Cancer Trial
- Adaptive Radiotherapy for Head and Neck Cancer: Initial Clinical Outcomes from a Prospective Trial
- American Association of Physicists in Medicine Task Group 263: Standardizing Nomenclatures in Radiation Oncology
- Motion Management Strategies and Technical Issues Associated with Stereotactic Body Radiotherapy of Thoracic and Upper Abdominal Tumors: A Review from NRG Oncology
- High-dose-rate interstitial brachytherapy as a monotherapy for localized prostate cancer: treatment description and preliminary results of a phase I/II clinical trial
- Highly efficient training, refinement, and validation of a knowledge-based plan quality control system for radiotherapy clinical trials
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.