ArticleJournal of dental anesthesia and pain medicine2021
Comparative evaluation of efficacy of Physics Forceps versus conventional forceps in pediatric dental extractions: a prospective randomized study.
Article in Journal of dental anesthesia and pain medicine, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. It is linked to trial NCT07366788 (Evaluation of Dental Pain, Anxiety, and Extraction Efficiency in Mandibular Primary Molar Extraction Using Physics Forceps in Children Aged 6-9 Years), which is not on this map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Evaluation of Dental Pain, Anxiety, and Extraction Efficiency in Mandibular Primary Molar Extraction Using Physics Forceps in Children Aged 6-9 Years: A Randomized Clinical Trial
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- A systematic review and network meta-analysis of virtual reality, audiovisuals and music interventions for reducing dental anxiety related to tooth extraction.BMC oral health · 2023Pooled it
- Effectiveness of Physics Forceps in Reducing Dental Pain, Anxiety, and Extraction Efficiency During Mandibular Primary Molar Extraction Among Children Aged 6-9 Years: A Randomized Clinical Trial.International journal of dentistry · 2026Article
- Erratum: Addendum: Comparative evaluation of efficacy of Physics Forceps versus conventional forceps in pediatric dental extractions: a prospective randomized study.Journal of dental anesthesia and pain medicine · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThis study aimed to determine the efficacy of Physics Forceps in pediatric dental extractions.
methodsThis was a double-blind, randomized controlled trial with a parallel-arm design and identical allocation ratio (1:1). Children (n=104) were randomly divided into two groups for extraction of mandibular primary teeth (group I: Physics Forceps; group II: conventional forceps). The outcome variables assessed in the study were the time taken for extraction, pre- and postoperative anxiety (using RMS pictorial scale), incidence of fractured teeth, and postoperative pain on the first and third days (using the Wong-Baker faces pain scale).
resultsA significant reduction (P < 0.001) in intraoperative time, anxiety, and incidence of tooth fracture was confined to group I. The pain significantly reduced from the first to the third postoperative day in both groups, but the mean reduction in RMS scores in the physics forceps group was far better than that in the conventional forceps group.
conclusionPhysics Forceps aid in extraction of primary teeth with minimal trauma to supporting structures, as well as reducing anxiety in the pediatric population.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.