Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research, ISSN - 0973 - 709X

Users Online : 49766

AbstractMaterial and MethodsResultsDiscussionConclusionReferencesDOI and Others
Article in PDF How to Cite Citation Manager Readers' Comments (0) Audio Visual Article Statistics Link to PUBMED Print this Article Send to a Friend
Advertisers Access Statistics Resources

Dr Mohan Z Mani

"Thank you very much for having published my article in record time.I would like to compliment you and your entire staff for your promptness, courtesy, and willingness to be customer friendly, which is quite unusual.I was given your reference by a colleague in pathology,and was able to directly phone your editorial office for clarifications.I would particularly like to thank the publication managers and the Assistant Editor who were following up my article. I would also like to thank you for adjusting the money I paid initially into payment for my modified article,and refunding the balance.
I wish all success to your journal and look forward to sending you any suitable similar article in future"

Dr Mohan Z Mani,
Professor & Head,
Department of Dermatolgy,
Believers Church Medical College,
Thiruvalla, Kerala
On Sep 2018

Prof. Somashekhar Nimbalkar

"Over the last few years, we have published our research regularly in Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research. Having published in more than 20 high impact journals over the last five years including several high impact ones and reviewing articles for even more journals across my fields of interest, we value our published work in JCDR for their high standards in publishing scientific articles. The ease of submission, the rapid reviews in under a month, the high quality of their reviewers and keen attention to the final process of proofs and publication, ensure that there are no mistakes in the final article. We have been asked clarifications on several occasions and have been happy to provide them and it exemplifies the commitment to quality of the team at JCDR."

Prof. Somashekhar Nimbalkar
Head, Department of Pediatrics, Pramukhswami Medical College, Karamsad
Chairman, Research Group, Charutar Arogya Mandal, Karamsad
National Joint Coordinator - Advanced IAP NNF NRP Program
Ex-Member, Governing Body, National Neonatology Forum, New Delhi
Ex-President - National Neonatology Forum Gujarat State Chapter
Department of Pediatrics, Pramukhswami Medical College, Karamsad, Anand, Gujarat.
On Sep 2018

Dr. Kalyani R

"Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research is at present a well-known Indian originated scientific journal which started with a humble beginning. I have been associated with this journal since many years. I appreciate the Editor, Dr. Hemant Jain, for his constant effort in bringing up this journal to the present status right from the scratch. The journal is multidisciplinary. It encourages in publishing the scientific articles from postgraduates and also the beginners who start their career. At the same time the journal also caters for the high quality articles from specialty and super-specialty researchers. Hence it provides a platform for the scientist and researchers to publish. The other aspect of it is, the readers get the information regarding the most recent developments in science which can be used for teaching, research, treating patients and to some extent take preventive measures against certain diseases. The journal is contributing immensely to the society at national and international level."

Dr Kalyani R
Professor and Head
Department of Pathology
Sri Devaraj Urs Medical College
Sri Devaraj Urs Academy of Higher Education and Research , Kolar, Karnataka
On Sep 2018

Dr. Saumya Navit

"As a peer-reviewed journal, the Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research provides an opportunity to researchers, scientists and budding professionals to explore the developments in the field of medicine and dentistry and their varied specialities, thus extending our view on biological diversities of living species in relation to medicine.
‘Knowledge is treasure of a wise man.’ The free access of this journal provides an immense scope of learning for the both the old and the young in field of medicine and dentistry as well. The multidisciplinary nature of the journal makes it a better platform to absorb all that is being researched and developed. The publication process is systematic and professional. Online submission, publication and peer reviewing makes it a user-friendly journal.
As an experienced dentist and an academician, I proudly recommend this journal to the dental fraternity as a good quality open access platform for rapid communication of their cutting-edge research progress and discovery.
I wish JCDR a great success and I hope that journal will soar higher with the passing time."

Dr Saumya Navit
Professor and Head
Department of Pediatric Dentistry
Saraswati Dental College
On Sep 2018

Dr. Arunava Biswas

"My sincere attachment with JCDR as an author as well as reviewer is a learning experience . Their systematic approach in publication of article in various categories is really praiseworthy.
Their prompt and timely response to review's query and the manner in which they have set the reviewing process helps in extracting the best possible scientific writings for publication.
It's a honour and pride to be a part of the JCDR team. My very best wishes to JCDR and hope it will sparkle up above the sky as a high indexed journal in near future."

Dr. Arunava Biswas
MD, DM (Clinical Pharmacology)
Assistant Professor
Department of Pharmacology
Calcutta National Medical College & Hospital , Kolkata

Dr. C.S. Ramesh Babu
" Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research (JCDR) is a multi-specialty medical and dental journal publishing high quality research articles in almost all branches of medicine. The quality of printing of figures and tables is excellent and comparable to any International journal. An added advantage is nominal publication charges and monthly issue of the journal and more chances of an article being accepted for publication. Moreover being a multi-specialty journal an article concerning a particular specialty has a wider reach of readers of other related specialties also. As an author and reviewer for several years I find this Journal most suitable and highly recommend this Journal."
Best regards,
C.S. Ramesh Babu,
Associate Professor of Anatomy,
Muzaffarnagar Medical College,
On Aug 2018

Dr. Arundhathi. S
"Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research (JCDR) is a reputed peer reviewed journal and is constantly involved in publishing high quality research articles related to medicine. Its been a great pleasure to be associated with this esteemed journal as a reviewer and as an author for a couple of years. The editorial board consists of many dedicated and reputed experts as its members and they are doing an appreciable work in guiding budding researchers. JCDR is doing a commendable job in scientific research by promoting excellent quality research & review articles and case reports & series. The reviewers provide appropriate suggestions that improve the quality of articles. I strongly recommend my fraternity to encourage JCDR by contributing their valuable research work in this widely accepted, user friendly journal. I hope my collaboration with JCDR will continue for a long time".

Dr. Arundhathi. S
MBBS, MD (Pathology),
Sanjay Gandhi institute of trauma and orthopedics,
On Aug 2018

Dr. Mamta Gupta,
"It gives me great pleasure to be associated with JCDR, since last 2-3 years. Since then I have authored, co-authored and reviewed about 25 articles in JCDR. I thank JCDR for giving me an opportunity to improve my own skills as an author and a reviewer.
It 's a multispecialty journal, publishing high quality articles. It gives a platform to the authors to publish their research work which can be available for everyone across the globe to read. The best thing about JCDR is that the full articles of all medical specialties are available as pdf/html for reading free of cost or without institutional subscription, which is not there for other journals. For those who have problem in writing manuscript or do statistical work, JCDR comes for their rescue.
The journal has a monthly publication and the articles are published quite fast. In time compared to other journals. The on-line first publication is also a great advantage and facility to review one's own articles before going to print. The response to any query and permission if required, is quite fast; this is quite commendable. I have a very good experience about seeking quick permission for quoting a photograph (Fig.) from a JCDR article for my chapter authored in an E book. I never thought it would be so easy. No hassles.
Reviewing articles is no less a pain staking process and requires in depth perception, knowledge about the topic for review. It requires time and concentration, yet I enjoy doing it. The JCDR website especially for the reviewers is quite user friendly. My suggestions for improving the journal is, more strict review process, so that only high quality articles are published. I find a a good number of articles in Obst. Gynae, hence, a new journal for this specialty titled JCDR-OG can be started. May be a bimonthly or quarterly publication to begin with. Only selected articles should find a place in it.
An yearly reward for the best article authored can also incentivize the authors. Though the process of finding the best article will be not be very easy. I do not know how reviewing process can be improved. If an article is being reviewed by two reviewers, then opinion of one can be communicated to the other or the final opinion of the editor can be communicated to the reviewer if requested for. This will help one’s reviewing skills.
My best wishes to Dr. Hemant Jain and all the editorial staff of JCDR for their untiring efforts to bring out this journal. I strongly recommend medical fraternity to publish their valuable research work in this esteemed journal, JCDR".

Dr. Mamta Gupta
(Ex HOD Obs &Gynae, Hindu Rao Hospital and associated NDMC Medical College, Delhi)
Aug 2018

Dr. Rajendra Kumar Ghritlaharey

"I wish to thank Dr. Hemant Jain, Editor-in-Chief Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research (JCDR), for asking me to write up few words.
Writing is the representation of language in a textual medium i e; into the words and sentences on paper. Quality medical manuscript writing in particular, demands not only a high-quality research, but also requires accurate and concise communication of findings and conclusions, with adherence to particular journal guidelines. In medical field whether working in teaching, private, or in corporate institution, everyone wants to excel in his / her own field and get recognised by making manuscripts publication.

Authors are the souls of any journal, and deserve much respect. To publish a journal manuscripts are needed from authors. Authors have a great responsibility for producing facts of their work in terms of number and results truthfully and an individual honesty is expected from authors in this regards. Both ways its true "No authors-No manuscripts-No journals" and "No journals–No manuscripts–No authors". Reviewing a manuscript is also a very responsible and important task of any peer-reviewed journal and to be taken seriously. It needs knowledge on the subject, sincerity, honesty and determination. Although the process of reviewing a manuscript is a time consuming task butit is expected to give one's best remarks within the time frame of the journal.
Salient features of the JCDR: It is a biomedical, multidisciplinary (including all medical and dental specialities), e-journal, with wide scope and extensive author support. At the same time, a free text of manuscript is available in HTML and PDF format. There is fast growing authorship and readership with JCDR as this can be judged by the number of articles published in it i e; in Feb 2007 of its first issue, it contained 5 articles only, and now in its recent volume published in April 2011, it contained 67 manuscripts. This e-journal is fulfilling the commitments and objectives sincerely, (as stated by Editor-in-chief in his preface to first edition) i e; to encourage physicians through the internet, especially from the developing countries who witness a spectrum of disease and acquire a wealth of knowledge to publish their experiences to benefit the medical community in patients care. I also feel that many of us have work of substance, newer ideas, adequate clinical materials but poor in medical writing and hesitation to submit the work and need help. JCDR provides authors help in this regards.
Timely publication of journal: Publication of manuscripts and bringing out the issue in time is one of the positive aspects of JCDR and is possible with strong support team in terms of peer reviewers, proof reading, language check, computer operators, etc. This is one of the great reasons for authors to submit their work with JCDR. Another best part of JCDR is "Online first Publications" facilities available for the authors. This facility not only provides the prompt publications of the manuscripts but at the same time also early availability of the manuscripts for the readers.
Indexation and online availability: Indexation transforms the journal in some sense from its local ownership to the worldwide professional community and to the public.JCDR is indexed with Embase & EMbiology, Google Scholar, Index Copernicus, Chemical Abstracts Service, Journal seek Database, Indian Science Abstracts, to name few of them. Manuscriptspublished in JCDR are available on major search engines ie; google, yahoo, msn.
In the era of fast growing newer technologies, and in computer and internet friendly environment the manuscripts preparation, submission, review, revision, etc and all can be done and checked with a click from all corer of the world, at any time. Of course there is always a scope for improvement in every field and none is perfect. To progress, one needs to identify the areas of one's weakness and to strengthen them.
It is well said that "happy beginning is half done" and it fits perfectly with JCDR. It has grown considerably and I feel it has already grown up from its infancy to adolescence, achieving the status of standard online e-journal form Indian continent since its inception in Feb 2007. This had been made possible due to the efforts and the hard work put in it. The way the JCDR is improving with every new volume, with good quality original manuscripts, makes it a quality journal for readers. I must thank and congratulate Dr Hemant Jain, Editor-in-Chief JCDR and his team for their sincere efforts, dedication, and determination for making JCDR a fast growing journal.
Every one of us: authors, reviewers, editors, and publisher are responsible for enhancing the stature of the journal. I wish for a great success for JCDR."

Thanking you
With sincere regards
Dr. Rajendra Kumar Ghritlaharey, M.S., M. Ch., FAIS
Associate Professor,
Department of Paediatric Surgery, Gandhi Medical College & Associated
Kamla Nehru & Hamidia Hospitals Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh 462 001 (India)
On May 11,2011

Dr. Shankar P.R.

"On looking back through my Gmail archives after being requested by the journal to write a short editorial about my experiences of publishing with the Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research (JCDR), I came across an e-mail from Dr. Hemant Jain, Editor, in March 2007, which introduced the new electronic journal. The main features of the journal which were outlined in the e-mail were extensive author support, cash rewards, the peer review process, and other salient features of the journal.
Over a span of over four years, we (I and my colleagues) have published around 25 articles in the journal. In this editorial, I plan to briefly discuss my experiences of publishing with JCDR and the strengths of the journal and to finally address the areas for improvement.
My experiences of publishing with JCDR: Overall, my experiences of publishing withJCDR have been positive. The best point about the journal is that it responds to queries from the author. This may seem to be simple and not too much to ask for, but unfortunately, many journals in the subcontinent and from many developing countries do not respond or they respond with a long delay to the queries from the authors 1. The reasons could be many, including lack of optimal secretarial and other support. Another problem with many journals is the slowness of the review process. Editorial processing and peer review can take anywhere between a year to two years with some journals. Also, some journals do not keep the contributors informed about the progress of the review process. Due to the long review process, the articles can lose their relevance and topicality. A major benefit with JCDR is the timeliness and promptness of its response. In Dr Jain's e-mail which was sent to me in 2007, before the introduction of the Pre-publishing system, he had stated that he had received my submission and that he would get back to me within seven days and he did!
Most of the manuscripts are published within 3 to 4 months of their submission if they are found to be suitable after the review process. JCDR is published bimonthly and the accepted articles were usually published in the next issue. Recently, due to the increased volume of the submissions, the review process has become slower and it ?? Section can take from 4 to 6 months for the articles to be reviewed. The journal has an extensive author support system and it has recently introduced a paid expedited review process. The journal also mentions the average time for processing the manuscript under different submission systems - regular submission and expedited review.
Strengths of the journal: The journal has an online first facility in which the accepted manuscripts may be published on the website before being included in a regular issue of the journal. This cuts down the time between their acceptance and the publication. The journal is indexed in many databases, though not in PubMed. The editorial board should now take steps to index the journal in PubMed. The journal has a system of notifying readers through e-mail when a new issue is released. Also, the articles are available in both the HTML and the PDF formats. I especially like the new and colorful page format of the journal. Also, the access statistics of the articles are available. The prepublication and the manuscript tracking system are also helpful for the authors.
Areas for improvement: In certain cases, I felt that the peer review process of the manuscripts was not up to international standards and that it should be strengthened. Also, the number of manuscripts in an issue is high and it may be difficult for readers to go through all of them. The journal can consider tightening of the peer review process and increasing the quality standards for the acceptance of the manuscripts. I faced occasional problems with the online manuscript submission (Pre-publishing) system, which have to be addressed.
Overall, the publishing process with JCDR has been smooth, quick and relatively hassle free and I can recommend other authors to consider the journal as an outlet for their work."

Dr. P. Ravi Shankar
KIST Medical College, P.O. Box 14142, Kathmandu, Nepal.
On April 2011

Dear team JCDR, I would like to thank you for the very professional and polite service provided by everyone at JCDR. While i have been in the field of writing and editing for sometime, this has been my first attempt in publishing a scientific paper.Thank you for hand-holding me through the process.

Dr. Anuradha
On Jan 2020

Important Notice

Original article / research
Year : 2022 | Month : March | Volume : 16 | Issue : 3 | Page : ZC27 - ZC30 Full Version

Needle Probe- A Novel Instrument for Atraumatic Extraction of Broken Maxillary Root Apices

Published: March 1, 2022 | DOI:
Tripthi Shetty, Ranganath Jhawar, Prakyath Malli

1. Reader, Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, AB Shetty Memorial Institute of Dental Sciences, NITTE (Deemed to be University), Mangalore, Karnataka, India. 2. Consultant, Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, HBT Medical College and Trauma Centre, Mumbai, Maharashtra, India. 3. Senior Lecturer, Department of Prosthodontics, Yenepoya Dental College, Yenepoya University, Mangalore, Karnataka, India.

Correspondence Address :
Tripthi Shetty,
Reader, Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, 6th Floor ABSMIDS, Derlakatte,
Mangalore-575018, Karnataka, India.


Introduction: Atraumatic extraction is the need of the hour to best preserve both hard and soft tissues. A novel instrument was designed, needle probe, in an effort to achieve the same efficacy with respect to extraction of maxillary teeth broken root fragments.

Aim: The aim of the study was to assess the efficacy of using needle probe in removing fractured maxillary tooth apical sections in terms of application, use and its handling.

Materials and Methods: In the present clinical, cross-sectional study, fifty patients requiring removal of fractured maxillary tooth root fragment as a complication of routine extraction were enrolled. The study was conducted between June 2020 to June 2021. Patients were assigned irrespective of gender, age or tooth, to group A (n=25) where extraction of root pieces was done using endodontic H files and group B (n=25) in whom extraction was done using the novel needle probe. Data was tabulated accordingly and analysed using Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) version 22 and categorical data between groups were analysed using Student’s t-test with significance level set at 0.05.

Results: The average time taken for successful removal of the root fragment in Group A was 3 minutes 3 seconds±23 seconds and 2 minutes 12 seconds±46 seconds in Group B. All inclusive, the needle probe proved to have excellent ease of operation, access and visibility in 24%, 24% and 36% cases as opposed to the conventional use of H files with minimal complications and tissue trauma.

Conclusion: Failure to retrieve the broken root is mostly associated with ankylosed and hypercementosis roots. The needle probe can be promising in its use for atraumatic root fragment extraction. The novel needle probe is easy to use, quick in application and hence results in better patient compliance.


Ankylosed teeth, Hypercementosis, Root fragment extraction, Tissue trauma

The extraction of the decayed, diseased and misaligned tooth although a mainstay of oral surgery, is actually a technique sensitive procedure. Be it therapeutic extraction of maxillary premolars for orthodontic purposes or routine extraction of unsalvageable teeth, the mantra today is atraumatic extraction aiming to preserve the alveolus and the cortical plates while maintaining the investing tissues (1). Advent of technology in terms of techniques and instrumentations have aided in achieving this feat to a large extent. However, fracture of tooth at the apex is a commonly encountered complication even today. This harrowing outcome is unpleasant equally to both the patient and clinician. This delicate situation causes the need for additional surgical procedure or sometimes a referral to the specialist (2). Inadvertent attempt to retrieve a broken maxillary tooth apex may lead tearing of Schneiderian membrane, formation of oro-antral fistula, slippage of the tooth into the maxillary sinus to name a few complications (3).

To avoid the same, many varying concepts have been employed for the removal of the apical portion of the fractured maxillary teeth (4). An open technique involving elevation of a well-designed buccal flap to subsequently gain access through a bony window to the broken fragment is less preferred than the close technique due to the drawback of possible bone resorption (5). Also, with the advent of the worrisome Coronavirus Disease-2019 pandemic use of such an imminent aerosol producing procedures have to be restricted to emergency protocol only (6).

The close technique however rallies on the concept of bone preservation being minimally invasive procedure where root extraction is performed through the alveolar cavity with different instruments. Many methods over the years have been adapted for retrieving the root fragment from the socket namely removal with apex elevators periotome, luxators, syringe needle or by engaging endodontic H file within the root canal (1). Each of these mentioned instruments have their limitations to be used in broken maxillary tooth retrieval such as being difficult to handling in terms of access and visibility these instruments provide and technique sensitive thereby requiring special training in adaptation of instrument, breakage of the instrument itself, dislodging the root apex further and socket perforation [3,4]. Hence, the need to design an instrument that is simple to use, and successful in atraumatically removing the broken tooth apex and has no or minimal associated complication. A simple hand held instrument “the needle probe” that can aid in atraumatic removal of these broken root apices was designed. The instrument can be used in removal of not only broken root apices but also for tooth roots and or any root fragments that occur as a consequence of routine extraction. The present cross-sectional clinical study was aimed at evaluating the technical applicability, ease of operation and shortcomings of the novel needle probe in easy and quick retrieval of broken maxillary tooth root apices.

Material and Methods

The present cross-sectional clinical study involved 50 patients indicated for extraction of the broken root fragment as a complication of routine extraction of maxillary tooth who presented to the Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery Department at AB Shetty Memorial Institute of Dental Sciences Mangalore, Karnataka, India between June 2020 to June 2021. Ethical clearance for the study was obtained by the Institutional Ethics Committee (ABSM/EC/22/2020).

Inclusion criteria: Patients requiring removal of broken root apices as a complication of routine extraction of maxillary tooth aged between 18-65 years were included in the study.

Exclusion criteria: Patients with previous history of attempted and failed extraction of root apex, fractured root fragment beyond four days of breaking and those not willing to provide informed consent were excluded. Patients with neurological diseases, psychiatric problems, history of drug allergy, moderate to severe uncontrolled systemic conditions which required close observation and follow-up were also excluded from the study.

Sample size calculation: Sample size was calculated using the following formula:

n={4s2 (Zcv+Zpower)2}/D2

where, ‘n’-sample size; ‘s’- standard deviation; ‘Zcv’- critical value for a; Zpower, Z value for 1 beta; ‘D’- the expected difference between the two means; a value, 0.05.

Substituting values in the equation n=16.2. So, the final sample of 25 subjects in each group was considered.

Study Procedure

From the pool of patients reporting to the Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery from June 2020 to June 2021, 50 patients in whom the maxillary teeth apices were fractured as a consequence of routine extraction were enrolled in this prospective observational clinical study and a simple random sample of 25 each was allotted to each group. Patients were assigned, irrespective of gender, age or tooth, to group A (n=25) where extraction of root pieces was done using endodontic H files and group B (n=25) in whom extraction was done using the novel needle probe. Informed consent was obtained by all patients enrolled in the study irrespective of the group assigned.

All procedures were done by 1 of 3 clinicians with atleast four years of clinical experience who were up skilled regarding the needle probe by audio-visual presentations and hands on demonstration of use and application. Data was collected by a single person. The variables measured were time taken for removal of the broken apex (in min, staring from application of the needle probe/H file to retrieval of the apex), accessibility and visibility and ease of operation. Complications if any, during the procedure were also noted.

All patients underwent extraction of broken maxillary tooth apex under strict aseptic precautions.

Group A: Based on the tooth and the apparent canal diameter, the fragment position, visibility and access, a suitable H file ranging between No. 25 to No. 40 was used to engage the broken root apex. After insertion, the file was engaged into the canal with a quarter of a rotation in a clockwise fashion and the same was confirmed by tugging of the file to ensure ample locking of the fragment (Table/Fig 1). Next clockwise and anticlockwise alternate rotations with strong apical pressure are done to ensure release of the periodontal fibres. After a couple of rotations the file is pulled out to retrieve the fragment (7).

Group B: The novel needle probe was conceptualised as a modification of the straight dental probe and works on the wedge principle enabling expansion of the bony socket to extract the tooth remnant (Table/Fig 2). The instrument is designed such that the blade, shank and handle all lie in a single straight line with a tip that is slender and sharp pointed like that of a straight needle (Table/Fig 3). It is to be held in a pen grasp, inserted into the socket between the broken tooth fragment and root, wedging it in between them causing alveolar socket expansion and fragment dislodgement (Table/Fig 4).

After assessment of the broken tooth apex the needle probe was inserted such that sharp tip is inserted between the alveolus and the root fragment. Gentle apical pressure is applied and held for a few seconds. The fragment dislodged is subsequently removed (Table/Fig 5).

Demographic data was recorded using case history proforma and then transferred to statistical analysis software for analysis (SPSS version 22). The end point was successful extraction of the broken root apex in both groups. Summary statistics for age, sex, type of tooth (anteriors, premolars, molars), and reason for extraction (carious teeth, orthodontic extractions, fractured teeth and others such as extractions for prosthetic rehabilitations, periodontally compromised teeth and supernumerary teeth) was calculated for the entire population and for individual groups in terms of for continuous and categoric variables. In each group, data pertaining to time of procedure i.e., from insertion of instrument to retrieval of tooth fragment, ease of using the instrument, access and visibility during instrumentation was collected using the 5 point Likert scale of quality (8). The scale corresponds to 0: very poor; 1: poor; 2: acceptable; 3: good; 4: excellent. Time taken to perform the procedure was measured by a single person in minutes. The operating clinician was asked to rate their experience in terms of ease, accessibility and visibility of the instrument used after each case on the mentioned scale and data was collected by a single person. Any complication that arose in either group as a consequence of the respective procedure was also noted.

Statistical Analysis

Data was tabulated and analysed using SPSS for windows version 22 (IBM Corp, Armonk, NY) and categorical data between groups were analysed using Student’s t-test. The significance level was set at 0.05.


A total of 22 females and 28 males with mean ages of 45 years (range 17-61 years) and 50 years (range 18-64 years) in group A and group B, respectively were enrolled in the study. Twenty five (50%) of the total extractions were of the premolars, 19 (38%) molars and 6 (12%) were anterior teeth. Majority of the teeth for extraction were due to caries: 24 (48%), followed by 18 (36%) orthodontic extractions, 4 (8%) fractured teeth and 4 (8%) extraction due to other indications such as prosthetic rehabilitations, periodontally compromised teeth and supernumerary teeth. Data of variables within the Group A and Group B is as described in (Table/Fig 6).

The average time taken for successful removal of the root fragment in Group A was 3 minutes 3 seconds±23 seconds and 2 minutes 12 seconds±46 seconds in Group B. The ease of operation with H files was found to be excellent in 12% cases and access and visibility found to be good in 16% each respectively in comparison to 24% of excellent ease of operation and 24% of excellent access and 36% of excellent visibility while using the novel needle probe (Table/Fig 7). The difference was found to be statistically insignificant. One patient in group A reported of repeated deflection of the H file causing difficulty in access and anchorage to the apex thereby delaying the extraction. One patient in group B reported perforation of socket due to inadvertent rupture and breach of the thin alveolar bone of the tooth socket which could potentially cause future infection. Both instances were managed aptly.


The present study demonstrated successful atraumatic extraction of fractured root apices in a much simpler fashion. Though vast number of different techniques with or without specialised instruments has been described in the past, many have their own limitations (9). Though statistically insignificant, the clinicians were of the opinion that the needle probe offered better ease in operation with lesser complication than the H file.

Many different methods for the retrieval of broken root fragments are found in literature. Pippi R et al, in a case report attempted removal of the broken root tips with the help of endodontic H files (5). The files engage effectively in the dentin than those by the K files or reamers however, it was not recommended to invisible and/or calcified canals, bony interferences, root hypercementosis and serious curvatures or lacerations. File breakage is also a commonly reported untoward outcome. Tip of the instrument fractured and retained in the socket causes infection and delays wound healing (7). The needle probe can be applied in all scenarios contraindicated for application of the files above mentioned except in cases of root hypercemntosis. Reyazulla MA et al., revived an easy non invasive protocol for extraction of root fragment of maxillary teeth which had already been advocated by Dlorr and Howarthin 1985 (10). He advocated removal of broken tooth apices with local anaesthetic syringe needle tip which was slowly engaged in the canal and slowly prying out the needle with the fragment attached. This however is a highly technique sensitive procedure with reports of needle breakage and deflection (10). The technique mentioned in this study of employing the needle probe overcomes these disadvantages as it engages into the socket space and is a sturdy instrument. Singh C et al., designed a buccal envelope flap corresponding to the broken root and introducing sharp probe to push the fragment out. This technique breaches the buccal cortical bone and defeats the purpose of bone preservation (1). Elevators, though indispensible in extricating broken teeth and fragments, their use in the maxillary region, especially non judicious can lead to traumatic complications (11). The needle probe is simple hand held instrument which could be used along the same lines as elevator and much safer in application because of its fine delicate tip generating just the ample amount of force thereby not causing any damaging impact.


Though the needle probe is applicable in many clinical scenarios presenting with complicated removal of broken tooth apices. But its use is limited in situations of tooth akylosis and hypercementosis.


To summarise, this study utilising the novel needle probe helps to establish its use and application in extraction of fractured maxillary tooth apices removal. This instrument causes minimum trauma, has the property of easy handling and provides ease in application and working. Hence, we introduce it as a novel instrument into a plethora of other armamentarium available for removal of broken teeth apices with the added advantage of being applicable in those cases where others cannot be used. The result highlights the needle probe as an aid in accurate and quick retrieval of root remnant in the maxilla. However, the instrument is nascent in inception and continued modification in its design and application needs to be a continuous process to address these limitations and improve its functioning. Future research should entail establishing the versatility and advantages of the needle probe over other surgical armamentarium used in quick and atraumatic removal of broken tooth apices.


Singh C, Sharma D, Newaskar V, Agrawal D. A simple technique for removal of broken root tip of maxillary premolars: A technical note. Journal of Maxillofacial and Oral Surgery. 2015;14(3):866-67. [crossref] [PubMed]
Edward J, Aziz MA, Usha AM, Narayanan JK. Comparing the Efficiency of two different extraction techniques in removal of maxillary third molars: A randomized controlled trial. Journal of maxillofacial and oral surgery. 2017;16(4):424-29. [crossref] [PubMed]
Heidbrink JA. Necessity for removal of all broken-off root tips. Journal of Dental Research. 1921;3(4):389-90. [crossref]
Ramesh N, Thangavel K, Aravind RJ, Kumar I, Priydharshini G, Ashmi A. Various techniques employed in the removal of apical root tips following dental extraction. Annals of SBV. 2020;9(2):37. [crossref]
Pippi R, Colaci R, Pietrantoni A. The window approach for extraction of tooth root fragments: A different soft tissue management. Journal of Clinical & Diagnostic Research. 2018;12(7):ZD04-05. [crossref]
Deogade SC, Naitam D. COVID-19 and dental aerosols: The infection connection. Avicenna Journal of Medicine. 2021;11(2):107. [crossref] [PubMed]
Talathi A, Umale V, Chandurkar K, Kulshrestha R, Rehani A. Atraumatic technique for removal of broken root tips of maxillary posterior teeth with endodontic K file-A technical consideration. J Dent Oral Disord Ther. 2018;6(2):01-04. [crossref]
Brown S. Likert scale examples for surveys. ANR Program evaluation, Iowa State University, USA. 2010 Dec.
Muska E, Walter C, Knight A, Taneja P, Bulsara Y, Hahn M, et al. Atraumatic vertical tooth extraction: A proof of principle clinical study of a novel system. Oral Surgery, Oral Medicine, Oral Pathology and Oral Radiology. 2013;116(5):e303-10. [crossref] [PubMed]
Reyazulla MA, Gopinath AL, Dutta A. Atraumatic removal of broken root piece-revival of a forgotten technique. Int J Oral Health Med Res. 2015;2(2):130-32.
Nayyar J, Clarke M, O’sullivan M, Stassen LF. Fractured root tips during dental extractions and retained root fragments. A clinical dilemma? British Dental Journal. 2015;218(5):285-90. [crossref] [PubMed]

DOI and Others

DOI: 10.7860/JCDR/2022/52600.16144

Date of Submission: Sep 27, 2021
Date of Peer Review: Dec 18, 2021
Date of Acceptance: Jan 08, 2022
Date of Publishing: Mar 01, 2022

• Financial or Other Competing Interests: None
• Was Ethics Committee Approval obtained for this study? Yes
• Was informed consent obtained from the subjects involved in the study? Yes
• For any images presented appropriate consent has been obtained from the subjects. Yes

• Plagiarism X-checker: Sep 28, 2021
• Manual Googling: Jan 07, 2022
• iThenticate Software: Jan 18, 2022 (7%)

ETYMOLOGY: Author Origin

JCDR is now Monthly and more widely Indexed .
  • Emerging Sources Citation Index (Web of Science, thomsonreuters)
  • Index Copernicus ICV 2017: 134.54
  • Academic Search Complete Database
  • Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ)
  • Embase
  • EBSCOhost
  • Google Scholar
  • HINARI Access to Research in Health Programme
  • Indian Science Abstracts (ISA)
  • Journal seek Database
  • Google
  • Popline (reproductive health literature)