A comparison of gingival inflammation related to retraction cords

A clinical study on the effects of cordless and conventional retraction techniques on the gingival and periodontal health

“…All techniques caused gingival injury after the first day as shown by the significant increase of GI. This may be explained by the reaction of the inflammatory cells to the mechanical or chemical trauma (de Gennaro et al 1982). However, when the three groups were compared after the first day, the greatest increase was significantly evident in the Expasyl group, while Ultrapak and Magic Foam groups showed similar increase.…”

The rabbit gingival tissue response to retraction liquids and tetrahydrozoline

“…Previous studies have shown that retraction agents damage epithelium, sulcus epithelium as well as connective tissue in vitro and in vivo conditions 6,15 . Changes in the periodontal tissue may be the result of mechanical damage of epithelium during application of retraction cord, but are more often related to the effect of the applied retraction agent.…”

Effects of potassium aluminum sulfate on TNF-α, MMP -1 and MMP-8 levels at gingival crevicular fluid in periodontally healthy subjects: a pilot study

“…But the TNF-α GCF levels of ret(+) group were not found to reach a peak 1 day after retraction compared to the baseline measurements. The homeostatic effect of aluminum-potassium-sulfate may be responsible for this outcome via inhibition of blood flow in periodontal tissues [3].…”

“…While the physical properties of retraction cords make gingival tissues retract laterally and vertically, chemical ingredients such as aluminum-potassium sulfate, epinephrine, and etc. may also provide chemical retraction via vasoconstriction and homeostasis [2,3].…”