Use of Flexible Periotomes and Conventional Periotomes in Atraumatic Extractions: A Comparative Study

The aim of this study was to compare the efficiency of flexible periotomes versus non-flexible conventional periotomes in atraumatic dental extractions of similar teeth. The study also aimed to evaluate the wound healing, duration of the procedure, and level of gingival laceration associated with the use of these two instruments. The study was a randomized controlled clinical trial involving 26 patients requiring nonsurgical tooth extractions bilaterally. The subjects were randomized into two groups: the study group, where flexible periotomes were used to break the periodontal ligament, and the control group, where conventional periotomes were used. A total of 52 extractions were performed, either for orthodontic or implant placement purposes. After the extractions, the researchers evaluated the level of gingival laceration, duration of the procedure, and wound healing on postoperative days 1 and 7. Any complications that arose were also noted. The study group (flexible periotome) and control group (conventional periotome) were compared, and the results showed that the flexible periotomes required a shorter duration of time (around 4 minutes) compared to conventional periotomes (7 minutes). Additionally, gingival lacerations were found to be less severe in the study group. In conclusion, the use of flexible periotomes was found to be more efficient in atraumatic dental extractions compared to conventional periotomes. This study highlights the importance of using newer technology to perform atraumatic extractions, particularly in the era of implantology where there is an increased demand for such procedures.