A comparative clinical and quantitative evaluation of the efficacy of conventional and recent gingival retraction systems: An in vitro study

Aim: Gingival deflection techniques can be classified as mechanical, mechanochemical, surgical, or any combination. Comparative evaluations of gingival retraction systems are done rarely mainly because there is no consensus on the evaluation criteria. Therefore, this study aimed to evaluate the efficacy of three different gingival retraction systems, i.e., Magic Foam Cord, expasyl paste, and aluminium chloride-impregnated retraction cord. Materials and Methods: Following impressions, obtained casts were measured for gingival sulcus opening width under optical microscope (with imaging system software). The presence of bleeding after removal of material, ease of procedure, and patient′s comfort were also evaluated. The data collected were tabulated and subjected to statistical analysis. Results and Conclusion: Evaluation of the clinical efficacy is relatively difficult because of the lack of appropriate measuring tool. In addition, choice of appropriate gingival retraction system is still a dilemma for the operator. Moreover, a particular clinical situation may indicate the specific technique.

[1]  M. Shivasakthy,et al.  Comparative Study on the Efficacy of Gingival Retraction using Polyvinyl Acetate Strips and Conventional Retraction Cord - An in Vivo Study. , 2013, Journal of clinical and diagnostic research : JCDR.

[2]  N. Gupta,et al.  Laser gingival retraction: a quantitative assessment. , 2013, Journal of clinical and diagnostic research : JCDR.

[3]  D. Prithviraj,et al.  Clinical Evaluation of Three New Gingival Retraction Systems: A Research Report , 2013, Journal of Indian Prosthodontic Society.

[4]  Rupali Kamath,et al.  Advances in Gingival Retraction , 2011 .

[5]  W. Thomson,et al.  New Zealand dentists' use of gingival retraction techniques for fixed prosthodontics and implants. , 2010, The New Zealand dental journal.

[6]  P. Marawar,et al.  Effect of retraction materials on gingival health: A histopathological study , 2010, Journal of Indian Society of Periodontology.

[7]  H. Dumfahrt,et al.  Quality of impressions after use of the Magic FoamCord gingival retraction system--a clinical study of 269 abutment teeth. , 2009, The International journal of prosthodontics.

[8]  M. Kazemi,et al.  Comparing the effectiveness of two gingival retraction procedures on gingival recession and tissue displacement: clinical study. , 2009 .

[9]  Khaled Q. Al Hamad,et al.  A clinical study on the effects of cordless and conventional retraction techniques on the gingival and periodontal health. , 2008, Journal of clinical periodontology.

[10]  V. Bennani,et al.  Gingival retraction techniques for implants versus teeth: current status. , 2008, Journal of the American Dental Association.

[11]  M. Meraner Soft tissue management for difficult cervical restorations. , 2006, General dentistry.

[12]  B. Laufer,et al.  The effect of sulcular width on the linear accuracy of impression materials in the presence of an undercut. , 2004, The International journal of prosthodontics.

[13]  Terry E Donovan,et al.  Current concepts in gingival displacement. , 2004, Dental clinics of North America.

[14]  Pascal Magne,et al.  Final impressions: a review of material properties and description of a current technique. , 2004, The International journal of periodontics & restorative dentistry.

[15]  F. Csempesz,et al.  In vitro kinetic study of absorbency of retraction cords. , 2003, The Journal of prosthetic dentistry.

[16]  A. Shannon Expanded clinical uses of a novel tissue-retraction material. , 2002, Compendium of continuing education in dentistry.

[17]  S. Scheffel,et al.  Epinephrine absorption from commercial gingival retraction cords in clinical patients. , 1992, The Journal of prosthetic dentistry.

[18]  S. Tardy,et al.  Evaluation of New Gingival Retraction Agents , 1991, Journal of dental research.

[19]  E. Nemetz,et al.  The use of chemical agents in gingival retraction. , 1990, General dentistry.

[20]  D. A. Runyan,et al.  Fluid absorbency of retraction cords after soaking in aluminum chloride solution. , 1988, The Journal of prosthetic dentistry.

[21]  R. Krejci,et al.  Gingival retraction preference of dentists in general practice. , 1986, Quintessence international.

[22]  T. Donovan,et al.  Review and survey of medicaments used with gingival retraction cords. , 1985, The Journal of prosthetic dentistry.

[23]  B. H. Williams,et al.  Clinical effectiveness of mechanical-chemical tissue displacement methods. , 1984, The Journal of prosthetic dentistry.

[24]  F. Carranza,et al.  Comparative study of gingival retraction methods. , 1983, The Journal of prosthetic dentistry.

[25]  R. G. Tupac,et al.  A comparison of cord gingival displacement with the gingitage technique. , 1981, The Journal of prosthetic dentistry.

[26]  R. Krejci,et al.  Retraction cords with aluminum chloride: effect on the gingiva. , 1980, Operative dentistry.

[27]  J. Ruel,et al.  Effect of retraction procedures on the periodontium in humans. , 1980, The Journal of prosthetic dentistry.

[28]  Herbert T.Shillingburg...,et al.  Fundamentals of fixed prosthodontics , 1979 .

[29]  L. B. Lum,et al.  Human blood pressure and pulse rate response to racemic epinephrine retraction cord. , 1978, The Journal of prosthetic dentistry.

[30]  M. Reiman Exposure of subgingival margins by nonsurgical gingival displacement. , 1976, The Journal of prosthetic dentistry.

[31]  J. Silness,et al.  Tissue reactions to string packs used in fixed restorations , 1963 .

[32]  Anthony La Forgia Tissue retraction for fixed prosthesis , 1961 .