Effect of gingival displacement cord and cordless systems on the closure, displacement, and inflammation of the gingival crevice

Chandra, Sumi; Singh, Ajay; Gupta, Kavya; Chandra, Chetan; Arora, Varun

doi:10.1016/j.prosdent.2015.06.023

Cited by 31 publications

(30 citation statements)

References 11 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The process of gingival displacement allows the exposure of the gingival or subgingival finish line along with the adjacent unprepared part of the tooth [3].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparative Evaluation of Efficacy of Gingival Retraction Using Chemical and Mechanical Methods: An in Vivo Study

Kohli

Hegde

2018

Asian J Pharm Clin Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: The purpose of this in vivo study was to compare and evaluate the clinical efficacy of two gingival retraction systems; Ultrapak and Traxodent, on the basis of the amount of gingival retraction achieved in vertical and horizontal direction and their hemorrhage control.Methods: A total of 60 subjects were selected requiring fixed prosthesis. The two gingival retraction systems were used on the prepared abutments randomly. The vertical gingival retraction was measured before and after retraction using flexible measuring strip with 0.5 mm grading. The horizontal retraction was measured on the casts poured in polysilicone impressions made before the retraction and after retraction.Results: Statistically significant difference (p<0.05) was found between the amount of the retraction (vertical and horizontal) achieved by Ultrapak as compared to Traxodent. However, in achieving hemostasis Traxodent showed better efficiency than Ultrapak (p<0.05). Conclusion:The mean retraction width and depth achieved with retraction cord (Ultrapak) was significantly greater when compared with retraction paste. Although retraction paste (Traxodent) showed bleeding index significantly less when compared to that of retraction cord (Ultrapak).

show abstract

“…The process of gingival displacement allows the exposure of the gingival or subgingival finish line along with the adjacent unprepared part of the tooth [3].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparative Evaluation of Efficacy of Gingival Retraction Using Chemical and Mechanical Methods: An in Vivo Study

Kohli

Hegde

2018

Asian J Pharm Clin Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…According to Donovan, Chee 2 , Baharav et al 12 , Laufer et al 13 and Chandra et al 14 , a horizontal width of 0.2 mm (approximately) can be obtained for the material to perform this task 2,12-14 . However, this width is maintained for a maximum of 60 seconds after removal of the cord, and later the gingival sulcus returns to its original position 14 .…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 96%

“…However, this width is maintained for a maximum of 60 seconds after removal of the cord, and later the gingival sulcus returns to its original position 14 . This is a factor that can hinder the impression-taking process, since the polymerization time of rubber-based materials, for example, can vary from 2 to 7 minutes 13 .…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparison between aluminum chloride and tetryzoline hydrochloride for control of vertical gingival displacement and crevicular fluid

Neto

Borges

Souza

et al. 2017

Rev. odontol. UNESP

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ResumoIntrodução: A utilização de fio de afastamento gengival com uma substância de afastamento gengival é um procedimento comum para se realizar uma moldagem com qualidade do término cervical em dentes com finalidade protética. Objetivo: Avaliar se o método mecânico-químico com cloridrato de tetrizolina a 0,05% ou cloreto de alumínio a 25% são capazes de reduzir o fluido crevicular e afastar o tecido gengival verticalmente em uma quantidade maior, estatisticamente significante, em comparação com o método mecânico de afastamento (sem substâncias químicas). Material e método: Dez pacientes foram selecionados, e os fios Ultrapak n° 000 e 1 foram posicionamos de maneira randomizada nos dentes 13, 21 e 23. Grupo I: fio sem substância química; Grupo II: fio impregnado com cloridrato de tetrizolina; Grupo III: fio impregnado com cloreto de alumínio. Utilizando modelos de gesso, foram capturadas trinta imagens com uma câmera acoplada a uma lupa, para análise do grau de afastamento. O fluxo crevicular foi quantificado através de uma balança de alta precisão, a partir de tiras de papel absorvente personalizadas para cada dente que recebeu afastamento gengival. Resultado: Não houve diferença estatística entre os três grupos quanto a quantidade de afastamento gengival vertical (Anova, p=0,26). Quanto a redução de fluido crevicular, não houve diferença entre os grupos teste e controle (Wilcoxon e Friedman, p < 0,05). Conclusão: A utilização do cloridrato de tetrizolina ou cloreto de alumínio em fio de afastamento gengival não melhorou a quantidade de afastamento vertical da gengiva e não reduziu a quantidade de fluido crevicular.Descritores: Retração gengival; líquido do sulco gengival; sulco gengival. AbstractIntroduction: The use of a gingival displacement cord with a gingival displacement substance is a common procedure for taking a quality impression of the cervical terminal in teeth for prosthetic purposes. Objective: To evaluate whether the mechanical-chemical method with 0.05% tetryzoline hydrochloride or 25% aluminum chloride is capable of reducing crevicular fluid, and displacing a statistically significant larger quantity of gingival tissue vertically, compared with the mechanical method (without chemical substances). Material and method: Ten patients were selected, and then No. 000 and 1 Ultrapak cords were randomly positioned on teeth 13, 21 and 23. Group I -cord with no chemical substance; Group II -cords impregnated with tetryzoline hydrochloride and Group III -cords impregnated with aluminum chloride. Using dental stone models, thirty images were captured with a camera coupled to a loupe to analyze the degree of gingival displacement. Crevicular fluid was quantified using a high-precision scale and individualized strips of absorbent paper for each tooth on which gingival displacement was performed. Result: There was no statistical difference between the three groups relative to the amount of vertical gingival displacement (Anova, p=0.26). As regards reduction in crevicular fluid, there was no difference betwe...

show abstract

“…Chandra et al investigated gingival displacement at healthy teeth in an in vivo study . After removal of retraction materials, standardized photographs of the sulcus were taken, then the width and closure of the sulcus was assessed .…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The success and longevity of fixed restorations depends highly on the impression process, particularly when the margins of preparations extend subgingivally . To record these vital marginal areas in the impression, sufficient space between the tooth and marginal gingiva is necessary . To ensure a sufficient bulk of impression material around the margins of the preparation, a minimum space of 0.15 to 0.20 mm has been recommended .…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparison of Gingival Retraction Materials Using a New Gingival Sulcus Model

Dederichs

Fahmy

Kuepper

et al. 2019

Journal of Prosthodontics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose To investigate the pressure generated by different retraction materials using a novel gingival sulcus model. Materials and Methods A gingival sulcus model was made using a polymer frame filled with silicon. A pressure sensor and a sulcus‐fluid simulation were embedded into the silicon chamber to evaluate the pressure generated by different retraction materials. Six sizes of Ultrapak retraction cords (Ultradent, sizes #000 ‐ 3), 4 retraction pastes (Expazen, Expasyl, Acteon, Access Edge, Traxodent) and 2 retraction gels (Sulcus Blue, Racegel) were analyzed. The mean and median pressure, interquartile range, and standard deviation (SD) of n = 10 repeated measurements were calculated. Statistical analysis was conducted by Kruskal‐Wallis test for differences between the main groups of retraction materials, and Mann‐Whitney U‐test was performed to analyze differences between the single retraction materials. Results Pressure (mean ± SD) generated by retraction cords increased with increasing size (48.26 ± 11.29 kPa, size #000 to 149.27 ± 28.75 kPa for #3). There was a significant difference between sizes (p < 0.01), except in #0 versus #1, and #2 versus #3. Retraction pastes generated pressures that ranged from 82.74 ± 29.29 kPa (Traxodent) to 524.35 ± 113.88 kPa (Expasyl). Retraction gels generated pressures from 38.96 ± 14.68 kPa (Racegel) to 95.15 ± 24.18 kPa (Sulcus Blue). Pressure generated by Expasyl was significantly higher than pressure generated by all other tested materials (p < 0.001). Conclusion Pressure generated by retraction pastes and gels depends on the consistency of the retraction material, while pressure generated by retraction cords increased with increasing size of cords. Expasyl was found to generate the highest pressure compared to all other retraction materials.

show abstract

Effect of gingival displacement cord and cordless systems on the closure, displacement, and inflammation of the gingival crevice

Cited by 31 publications

References 11 publications

Comparative Evaluation of Efficacy of Gingival Retraction Using Chemical and Mechanical Methods: An in Vivo Study

Comparative Evaluation of Efficacy of Gingival Retraction Using Chemical and Mechanical Methods: An in Vivo Study

Comparison between aluminum chloride and tetryzoline hydrochloride for control of vertical gingival displacement and crevicular fluid

Comparison of Gingival Retraction Materials Using a New Gingival Sulcus Model

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About