Efficacy of two gingival retraction systems on lateral gingival displacement: A prospective clinical study

Abstract

Ultrapak Lateral displacementTravelling microscope a b s t r a c t Purpose: Gingival management is a substantive procedure in fixed dental prosthesis treatment. Various new retraction cord systems are available and used. This study aimed to compare the efficacy of a new retraction cord (Stay-Put, Coltene Whaledent AG) and a conventional retraction cord (Ultrapak, Ultradent Products Inc., South Jordan, Utah) on lateral gingival displacement in continuation with the treatment protocol of the subjects fixed dental prosthesis for various partial edentulous conditions requiring fixed dental prosthesis. Method: Thirty subjects were selected who needed bilateral fixed dental restoration. In selected subjects both gingival retraction cords were placed bilaterally buccolingually by simple randomization method. After removing the cords, impressions were made and undamaged definitive casts were retrieved. The abutment teeth were sectioned buccolingually at the buccal ridge followed by decimal measurement of the width (in millimeter) of the retracted gingival sulcus, under a traveling microscope. Results: Data was analyzed using SPSS version. Paired "t" test was used to compare the difference between the displaced gingival width in two retraction group ( p > 0.05). Conclusion: Although mean gingival retraction in Stay-Put system (0.528 AE 0.12 mm) was higher as compared to that in Ultrapak (0.487 AE 0.10 mm), the difference between the two systems (0.041 AE 0.11) was not significant statistically ( p ¼ 0.057).

Effect of Gingival Retraction Method to Lateral Gingival Displacement Width

“…On the gingival retraction procedure, the preparation finish line on the cervical tooth surface, which covered by gingival tissue, is expected to be exposed so that it can be recorded accurately by impression material [1]. A good impression could be obtained if the lateral gingival displacement width is 0.15 -0.2 mm, which able to provides excellent access for impression material [4][5][6].…”

“…(3) causing a recession of gingiva 0.2 ± 0.1 mm; (4) lots of hemostatic agent residue were left in the gingival sulcus which may lead to a gingival inflammation if not properly removed; (5) inconvenient to the patient [6,[9][10][11][12][13].…”

Comparative Study on the Efficacy of Gingival Retraction using Polyvinyl Acetate Strips and Conventional Retraction Cord – An in Vivo Study

“…Both the mean values were compared to know the amount of effective retraction (t=7.334) of significance (p=0.001). bleeding and indirect assessments of the sulcus dilation with impression materials [2] and assessing the section of dies by travelling microscope [10].…”

Impression Techniques Used for Single‐Unit Crowns: Findings from the National Dental Practice‐Based Research Network

“…Often a chemical agent is added to induce hemostasis, or the gingival tissues might be removed surgically with a rotary instrument, laser, or heated electrode . In some studies, the techniques using retraction cord provided more displacement, but cordless techniques (paste) may have advantages in patient comfort and fewer inflammatory markers . The use of compression caps and lasers has also been reported …”

“…2,6 In some studies, the techniques using retraction cord provided more displacement, but cordless techniques (paste) may have advantages in patient comfort and fewer inflammatory markers. [8][9][10] The use of compression caps and lasers has also been reported. [11][12][13] A multitude of techniques exist for making impressions for single-unit crowns, with variations in impression materials, techniques, and tray types.…”