Abstract

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 par-ticipants 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 analge-sics 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 lac-erations 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 post-operative VAS pain scores, and lower dosage of analgesics despite the superior ability of the piezotome to prevent gingival laceration.