An interventional study of ARM 1 Physics forceps (40 Participant) and ARM 2 conventional forceps (40 Participant) in Dental Anxiety, Dental Pain and Dental Extraction, sponsored by Damascus University. Completed at 1 site in Syria. Open to participants aged 6 Years to 9 Years. Per ClinicalTrials.gov, last updated 2026-03-19.
Sponsored by Damascus University · Not applicable, Interventional, and Treatment
Tooth extraction is a common procedure and often associated with pain, fear, and discomfort especially in pediatric patients, which may lead to a negative attitude toward the dental. Therefore, identifying techniques that reduce pain and anxiety while improving procedural efficiency is of clinical importance.
This randomized clinical trial aimed to evaluate the efficiency of Physics forceps on dental pain, anxiety, and extraction in children aged 6-9 years undergoing primary molar extraction.
Eligible children requiring extraction of lower primary molars will be randomly assigned to one of two groups based on the type of extraction forceps used (Physics or conventional).
Dental anxiety will be assessed using both physiological measures (pulse rate) and subjective measures (Facial Image Scale).
Pain perception will be evaluated using the FLACC pain scale during local anesthesia administration and tooth extraction.
The duration of the extraction procedure will be recorded, and any intraoperative complications will be documented.
The findings of this study provide clinical evidence regarding the effectiveness of Physics forceps in reducing pain and anxiety and improving extraction efficiency among pediatric patients in a dental clinic, which leads to better clinical decision-making and enhanced pediatric patient care.
This study investigates the use of a physics forceps compared with a conventional forceps during the extraction of mandibular primary molars in pediatric dental patients. Extraction of primary molars is a frequently performed procedure in pediatric dentistry and is often associated with dental anxiety, pain perception, and behavioral management challenges. Improving extraction techniques may positively influence the child's experience as well as the clinician's efficiency.
The study focuses on evaluating whether the use of a physics forceps can contribute to a more favorable clinical and patient-centered outcome when compared to traditional extraction instruments. The intervention does not introduce any additional or experimental dental procedures, as all tooth extractions included in the study are clinically indicated and performed as part of routine dental care.
The comparison between the two extraction approaches aims to assess their impact on child comfort, emotional response during treatment, and procedural efficiency. Particular attention is given to outcomes related to pain perception, anxiety levels, and the overall duration of the extraction procedure, as these factors play a significant role in pediatric dental management.
In addition to patient-centered outcomes, the study also considers operator-related and procedural aspects, including ease of use and the occurrence of intraoperative difficulties or complications. All clinical procedures are carried out following standard pediatric dental protocols, ensuring that patient safety and ethical principles are fully respected.
Data collected from this study are intended to provide clinically meaningful insight into whether Physics forceps offer advantages over conventional forceps in routine pediatric dental practice. The results may support evidence-based decision-making when selecting extraction instruments for children and may contribute to improving the overall quality of care during primary tooth extraction.
For both groups, the inclusion criteria were:
Exclusion Criteria:
- 1. Children who were taking medications that may alter pain perception or bleeding tendency.
2. Teeth with insufficient root structure that made extraction technically unfeasible.
\- Intervention Arm: Extraction of mandibular primary first and second molars using Physics forceps. Following topical anesthesia with 20% benzocaine gel, local anesthesia was administered using 4% articaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine. Tooth extraction was performed according to the manufacturer's instructions, without conventional rotational movements.
Device: ARM 1 Physics forceps (40 Participant)
\- Control Arm: Extraction of mandibular primary first and second molars using conventional instruments, including periosteal elevators, straight elevators, and conventional pediatric forceps, following standard clinical practice.
Device: ARM 2 conventional forceps (40 Participant)
After obtaining the child's medical history, clinical and radiographic exams assessed the restorability of lower primary molars and the need for extraction. Written informed consent was obtained from parents/guardians. Participants were randomized using a computer-generated sequence (www.randomization.com). Baseline anxiety was measured via pulse rate and the Facial Image Scale. The procedure was explained using Tell-Show-Do. Topical 20% benzocaine was applied before 4% articaine with 1:100.00 epinephrine. Pain during anesthesia was assessed with FLACC. Post-anesthesia anxiety was reassessed and anesthesia adequacy verified. Tooth extraction was performed with physics ; pain, anxiety, and procedure duration were recorded. Post-extraction, tooth fracture, gingival tearing were evaluated , and postoperative instructions were given
After obtaining the child's medical history, clinical and radiographic exams assessed the restorability of lower primary molars and the need for extraction. Written informed consent was obtained from parents/guardians. Participants were randomized using a computer-generated sequence (www.randomization.com). Baseline anxiety was measured via pulse rate and the Facial Image Scale. The procedure was explained using Tell-Show-Do. Topical 20% benzocaine was applied before 4% articaine with 1:100.00 epinephrine. Pain during anesthesia was assessed with FLACC. Post-anesthesia anxiety was reassessed and anesthesia adequacy verified. Tooth extraction was performed by conventional forceps; pain, anxiety, and procedure duration were recorded. Post-extraction, tooth fracture, gingival tearing were evaluated , and postoperative instructions were given
Dental pain
Pain intensity assessed using FLACC behavioral observational scale (Face, Legs, Activity, Cry, Consolability), with a total score from 0 to 10(0 = Relaxation, 1 - 3 = Mild discomfort, 4 - 6 = Moderate discomfort, 7 - 10 = Severe discomfort
Time frame: During local anesthesia administration (from needle insertion until needle withdrawal). During tooth extraction (from forceps application on tooth until tooth removal).
Extraction Time
Duration of extraction procedure measured from forceps application until complete removal of the tooth. - Unit of Measure: Seconds.
Time frame: Periprocedurally (during extraction),from the second the forceps is applied on the tooth until the second the tooth is out.
Dental Anxiety - Pulse Rate
Anxiety assessed objectively by pulse rate using pulse oximeter. Unit of Measure: Beats per minute (bpm)
Time frame: - Baseline (upon seating, before procedure). - After local anesthesia administration. - During extraction.
Dental Anxiety - Facial Image Scale (FIS)
Anxiety assessed subjectively using Facial Image Scale (score 1-5), very happy (score =1) to very unhappy (score =5).
Time frame: - Baseline (upon seating, before procedure). - After local anesthesia administration. - Immediately after extraction.
Intraoperative Complications
Presence or absence of tooth fracture and/or soft tissue tearing documented on structured data collection form.
Time frame: Immediately after extraction.
Plan to share: No
This study is completed, as verified in Mar 2026. You cannot join it, but the record below documents what was studied.
Get an email when the registry record changes — status, dates, results — or when someone posts here.
Sign in to followQuestions and observations about this study, from anyone following it. Not medical advice, and not a channel to the study team — their contact details are on the registry record.
Sign in to join the discussion. Reading takes no account; posting does. You choose a display name, and a pseudonym is the default.
Nothing here yet. If you are running this trial, taking part in it, or weighing whether to, this is the place to say so.
Damascus University