Comparative Evaluation of the Clinical Efficacy of Four Different Gingival Retraction Systems: An In Vivo Study

Madaan, Rahul; Paliwal, Jyoti; Sharma, Vineet; Meena, Kamal K; Dadarwal, Ashish; Kumar, Roshni

doi:10.7759/cureus.23923

Cited by 4 publications

(8 citation statements)

References 26 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…However, in Gp P, the retraction was greater (525.84) than in Gp C (309.11). The values obtained for the cotton-based retraction cord (Ultrapak) agree with values obtained in previous studies by Al Hamad et al [12], Madaan et al [17], Chaudhari et al [20], and Gajbhiye et al [22]. Our results also are in agreement with the results obtained between the 2 investigated materials after retraction [12,17,20,22,39].…”

Section: Gingival Displacementsupporting

confidence: 92%

See 1 more Smart Citation

A Clinical Study of 50 Partially Edentulous Patients with Fixed Partial Denture Restorations to Compare Clinical Parameters and Changes in Gingival Sulcus Width After Displacement with 2 Different Gingival Retraction Cord Materials (Cotton and Polymer)

et al. 2023

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background:The present study aimed to compare the clinical performance and gingival sulcus width changes in partially edentulous patients using cotton and polymer gingival retraction cords. Material/Methods:Fifty partially edentulous patients were divided into 2 groups (Gp C and Gp P) and were subjected to single crown/fixed partial denture treatment. Clinical parameters, including plaque index scores, placement time, and hemorrhage control scores, were assessed. Gingival sulcus width changes before and after retraction were evaluated using individual type 4 dental stone dies observed under an optical microscope. Statistical analysis was performed using dependent/independent t tests. Results:The mean placement time, hemorrhage control time, and hemorrhagic scores were lower in Gp P than in Gp C, indicating better clinical performance of polymer-based retraction cord. Both groups showed an increase in sulcus width after retraction, but Gp P had a significantly higher sulcus width (690.03±45.37) compared to Gp C (471.38±28.13). The mean difference in sulcus width between baseline and after retraction was also significantly higher in Gp P (525.84 micrometers) than in Gp C (309.11 micrometers). Conclusions:The present study shows that polymer-based cords produce more sulcus width and have better clinical performance compared to cotton-based gingival retraction cords. These results suggest that the use of polymerbased retraction cords can improve the quality of dental impressions in partially edentulous patients.

show abstract

Section: Gingival Displacementsupporting

confidence: 92%

“…Our results also show that polymer-based cord took less time for placement (Gp C 157.1 versus Gp P 140.3). Our results for Ultrapak retraction cord (cotton) show similar placement time values as in earlier [6,12,17] and recent [39] studies.…”

Section: Clinical Parameterssupporting

confidence: 90%

A Clinical Study of 50 Partially Edentulous Patients with Fixed Partial Denture Restorations to Compare Clinical Parameters and Changes in Gingival Sulcus Width After Displacement with 2 Different Gingival Retraction Cord Materials (Cotton and Polymer)

et al. 2023

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…В ідеалі, техніка ретракція ясен повинна бути простою, швидкою та недорогою, не повинна спричиняти пошкодження тканин пародонта. На сьогоднішній день існують різні методи ретракції, включаючи ретракційні шнури, ротаційний кюретаж, мідні стрічки, електрохірургічні методики, лазерну ретракцію, застосування деяких типів полімерних і пластикових матеріалів [3].…”

unclassified

“…Сукупність таких складових як ретракція, колапс і зсув відіграють роль у зміщенні тканин пародонта [1,14]. Під час ретракції природних зубів добре диференційовані пародонтальні волокна підтримують волокна ясен і частково зменшують колапс тканини після видалення ретракційного агента [1,3,9]. Після препарування кінцевої лінії опорного зуба крайова ясна зміщується, з метою контролю кровотечі, відтоку ясенної рідини та більш глибокого проникнення відбиткового матеріалу.…”

unclassified

See 1 more Smart Citation

Gum Retraction Methods in Orthopedic Dentistry: Current State of the Problem

Nespriadko

Terekhov

2023

Scientific and practical journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Gingival retraction is the procedure of bending the gingival margin away from the tooth surface, which provides sufficient horizontal and vertical space between the prepared finish line and the gingiva for the introduction of a sufficient amount of impression material. Several factors influence the success and durability of orthopedic restorations in dentistry. In particular, supragingival margins are necessary to maintain periodontal health, but do not provide optimal aesthetics. The gingival margin should be clean and accessible during impression making, and the gingival groove should be wide enough (from 0.15 to 0.20 mm). Therefore, in orthopedic dentistry, the problem of the optimal gum retraction technique, the influence of the chosen technique on the impression procedure is relevant. Ideally, the gum retraction technique should be simple, fast and inexpensive, should not cause damage to the periodontal tissues. Today, there are various methods of retraction, including retraction cords, rotary curettage, copper tapes, electrosurgical techniques, laser retraction, and the use of some types of polymer and plastic materials. The article provides an overview of the main commonly accepted methods of gum retraction, which can be classified into mechanical, chemical and surgical. Particular attention is paid to such retraction methods as non-medicated cords, medicated cords, wireless methods, astringent hemostatic agents, retraction paste for gums, vasoconstrictors, lasers, rotary curettage, electrosurgery. Study substantiation: Despite significant progress of orthopedic dentistry in the last decades, clear criteria for selection of method of retraction are not currently allocated. The purpose of the study: to conduct an analysis of modern and available methods of gum retraction in orthopedic dentistry, to highlight the safety and effectiveness criteria of each of the methods, depending on the clinical situation. The materials and methods: the available scientific sources of recent years, devoted to the technique of gum retraction in orthopedic dentistry, analyzed by the methods of review, system and content analysis. The search strategy was to manually search the Pub-Med and Google Scholar databases from 1985 to 2022 for articles related to retraction prior to making an impression of a fixed prosthesis. Key words included "impression making" and "gingival retraction". The clinical effectiveness of retraction methods is assessed according to the following criteria: A – effectiveness (degree of horizontal and vertical gum recession, possibility of controlling bleeding and outflow of gum fluid). B – degree of retraction (ideally, the agents used should not lead to damage to the epithelial tissue). Otherwise, this damage should be reversible. The maximum apical recession after gingival retraction should not exceed 0.10 mm. C-absorption of retraction agents in tissue should not cause systemic effects. The conclusion of the review is a general assessment of the effectiveness of retraction methods according to the following criteria: effectiveness, degree of retraction, absorption of retraction agents. Emphasis is placed on the greatest efficiency of the laser retraction method. The author suggests further research in this direction. Despite the significant progress of orthopedic dentistry in recent decades, additional research should be conducted to develop clear criteria for the effectiveness of gum retraction methods.

show abstract

Clinical and immunological aspects of gingival retraction systems in fixed dental prostheses: A systematic review

Alarcón-Sánchez,

Minervini,

Heboyan

2024

Eur J Inflamm

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective To describe the existing knowledge on the efficacy of the different gingival retraction systems (GRSs) in gingival displacement, to know their effects on biological functions of human gingival fibroblasts (HGFs), and on the expression of inflammatory mediators (TNF-α and MCP-1) in gingival crevicular fluid (GCF), and saliva. Methods The protocol used for this systematic review was registered in INPLASY: 202410005. A digital search was performed in the databases PubMed/MEDLINE, Scopus, Science Direct, Web of Science, and Google Scholar of the literature published in the English language in the last 17 years (from December 10th, 2006, to May 15th, 2023), and included retrospective randomized clinical studies, prospective, and in vitro experimental studies. In addition, PRISMA criteria were followed. The methodological validity of the selected articles was assessed using Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) critical appraisal tool, and the modified Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials checklist (CONSORT). Results 27 articles published between 2006 and 2023 were evaluated. Six hundred 32 subjects, aged between 18 and 65, participated in the clinical studies. 93.7% of the studies assessed periodontally healthy patients, and only 6.3% evaluated patients with mild gingivitis. Also, 882 teeth were samples, of which the majority were posterior teeth (54%). The most commonly used GRSs was aluminum chloride gingival retraction paste (74%). The GCF samples were taken in 67% of the studies, and ELISA was used in all studies (100%) to determine inflammatory mediators. The most frequently analyzed marker was TNF-α (67%). Conclusion The system Merocel Strips (Mystic, conn, USA) achieved the highest level of gingival displacement (1.66 ± 3.7 mm). In addition, the braided cords produced the lowest TNF-α levels (0.43 ± 0.08pg/mL). Astringent systems such as ferric sulfate had higher toxicity in HGFs.

show abstract

Comparative Evaluation of the Clinical Efficacy of Four Different Gingival Retraction Systems: An In Vivo Study

Cited by 4 publications

References 26 publications

A Clinical Study of 50 Partially Edentulous Patients with Fixed Partial Denture Restorations to Compare Clinical Parameters and Changes in Gingival Sulcus Width After Displacement with 2 Different Gingival Retraction Cord Materials (Cotton and Polymer)

A Clinical Study of 50 Partially Edentulous Patients with Fixed Partial Denture Restorations to Compare Clinical Parameters and Changes in Gingival Sulcus Width After Displacement with 2 Different Gingival Retraction Cord Materials (Cotton and Polymer)

Gum Retraction Methods in Orthopedic Dentistry: Current State of the Problem

Clinical and immunological aspects of gingival retraction systems in fixed dental prostheses: A systematic review

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About