ArticleDentistry journal2024
Minimally Invasive Extraction System Benex-Clinical Evaluation and Comparison.
Article in Dentistry journal, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Atraumatic Maxillary Canine Root Repositioning as an Alternative to Orthodontic Forced Eruption: A Case Report.Clinical case reports · 2026Article
- Impact of Conventional vs. Vertical Tooth Extraction on Three-Dimensional Soft Tissue Remodelling and Aesthetic Parameters of Adjacent Teeth: One-Year Results of a Randomized Clinical Trial.Dentistry journal · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Tooth extraction is one of the oldest and most well-known surgical procedures in dental medicine. It is still routinely performed by general practitioners and dental undergraduates. The Benex extraction system allows for the extraction of teeth in a vertical direction, which avoids most trauma against surrounding alveolar bone and soft tissues. The study included 56 patients who were recruited from the Department of Oral Surgery, Medical University-Plovdiv. The patients were split into two groups of 28 patients-Group I (control group) and Group II (study group). For each group, the success of the extraction, buccal cortical plate preservation, pain experience and early wound healing were assessed. There was no statistical significance between the success of the extractions in both groups. The Benex extractions preserved the buccal cortical plate in 95% of the cases, whereas the forceps extractions preserved it in only 71.8%, which is statistically significant. On the seventh day, patients in Group II reported less pain, without a significant difference. There was a significantly bigger number of completely healed extraction wounds on the 10th day. Atraumatic extractions allow for more hard and soft tissues to be preserved in the extraction site. This is essential for a successful outcome and the aesthetically pleasing results of the following dental restoration.
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.