Periotome versus piezotome as an aid for atraumatic extraction: a randomized controlled trial

OBJECTIVES: A single-blinded randomized controlled trial was designed to compare and evaluate the effectiveness of the periotome and piezotome as aids for atraumatic extraction and its sequalae. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The study sample comprised 48 teeth, equally allotted to the piezotome or periotome groups by random allocation, in participants aged 19-62 years. All samples in both groups had either complete tooth structure or intact roots without crowns and had mobility ≤grade II. Clinical parameters of operative duration, presence or absence of gingival laceration, reported operative and postoperative pain, and intake of analgesics following extraction were recorded. IBM SPSS software package version 22 was used for data entry and analysis. RESULTS: The mean operation time was significantly (P≤0.05) longer in the piezotome group than in the periotome group. However, fewer gingival lacerations were observed with use of a piezotome than with a periotome, although no significant difference was observed. The piezotome group reported significantly (P≤0.05) higher visual analog scale (VAS) pain scores during the procedure and non-significantly higher scores thereafter until the third postoperative day. In the piezotome group, the dosage of analgesic was higher, although the periotome group had a higher percentage of participants who used analgesics postoperatively; however, these differences were not statistically significant. CONCLUSION: The present clinical trial favors the use of periotome over piezotome for atraumatic extraction due to shorter operating time, lower postoperative VAS pain scores, and lower dosage of analgesics despite the superior ability of the piezotome to prevent gingival laceration.