A comparative clinical and quantitative evaluation of the efficacy of conventional and recent gingival retraction systems: An in vitro study (original) (raw)
Related papers
An in-vivo study to evaluate the clinical efficacy of different gingival retraction systems
International Journal of Advance Research, Ideas and Innovations in Technology, 2019
Background: Meticulous impression of the prepared teeth is of extreme importance for successful fixed prosthetic restorations. Gingival retraction allows access to finish lines and to create space for the impression material to record prepared and unprepared tooth structure. Dentists should carefully consider the various materials and methods of gingival retraction in light of the potential risks involved. Aim: The aim of this study was to assess and compare the amount of displacement in terms of lateral displacement by the Expasyl and Magic FoamCord retraction systems. Materials and methods: Study was conducted on the unprepared right and left maxillary central incisors for 10 subjects. Subjects were selected based on certain selection criteria. The pre-displacement and post-displacement impressions were made in a custom tray with monophase addition silicone material using a single mix-one step impression technique. Final cast of maxillary central incisors was sectioned longitudinally into two equal halves. The sectioned halves were oriented on mounting jig using a spirit level and assessed under a traveling microscope. The measurements were made from the crest of the gingival margin to the mid-buccal surface of the tooth. The amount of gingival displacement in each group was calculated by subtracting the pre-displacement values from post-displacement values. From the observations obtained statistical analysis was performed using paired't' and unpaired't' test. Results: Group I produced more amount of lateral displacement than Group II. However, the amount of gingival displacement between Group I and Group II showed a statistically significant difference. Conclusion: Expasyl pastes retraction system showed more lateral displacement of gingiva compared to Magic Foam Cord system.
Asian Journal of Pharmaceutical and Clinical Research, 2018
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).
A comparative evaluation of the efficacy of two gingival retraction systems: an in vivo study
European Journal of Molecular & Clinical Medicine,, 2020
Aim: To compare and evaluate the efficacy of two gingival retraction systems. Materials and method: This in vivo experimental study was carried out on 20 patients in need of tooth supported crown and bridge. Two different gingival retraction systems were used to evaluate the amount of gingival displacement. Patients were marked as A, B, C and so on and for each patient three impressions were made and named as I, II, III. Group I-Control (baseline impression), Group II-Impression with knitted retraction cord #00 size ultrapak group, Group III-Impression with 3M ESPE retraction capsule (in millimeter). The abutment tooth was prepared for full coverage crown with a subgingival finish line. Baseline impression was made on the first day of tooth preparation without retraction. On day 8 and day 15 impressions were made with vinyl polysiloxane regular body after displacement with anyone of 2 displacement agents. A total of three impressions were made for each abutment tooth. Impressions were poured immediately with die stone. A 3 mm thick buccolingual slice was obtained from the cast of the prepared tooth region with the die cutter. The gingival retraction was measured from the tooth to the crest of gingiva in a horizontal plane. These samples were viewed under a Profile projector (MEERA METZER PROFILE PROJECTOR MODEL-MET7-B01RD) at 10x magnification and gingival retraction was measured from the tooth surface to the crest of gingival. Datas obtained were then send for statistical analysis. Results: There was a highest mean value for group III (3M ESPE retraction capsule)-1.1879±0.2490 mmin comparison to group I, group II. On performing the student independent t test, it was found that P is <0.05 that is statistically significant. Conclusion: Impression made after retraction of gingiva with 3M ESPE retraction capsule was effective in respect to gingival displacement.
Contemporary Clinical Dentistry, 2015
Statement of Problem: Tetrahydrozoline has been introduced as new gingival retraction agent but its clinical efficacy with widely used conventional retraction agents has not been tested. Purpose: The study was designed to clinically evaluate efficacy of newer retraction agent tetrahydrozoline with two widely used retraction systems i.e., Expasyl retraction system and medicated retraction cords on basis of amount of gingival retraction. Materials and Methods: 30 subjects were selected according to inclusion and exclusion criteria. Maxillary Impressions were made with irreversible hydrocolloid for all subjects. Tray material was used for making the special tray. Latin Block Design was Used in the Study to avoid tissue fatigue. Retraction was done with aluminium chloride; Tetrahydrozoline and Expasyl according to Latin block design. Impressions were poured with die stone. Casts were retrieved and sections were made with die cutter. 3 mm thin slices were obtained. Each slice was used to measure the amount of retraction under stereomicroscope under 20x and images were transferred to image analyser. Results: The amount of gingival retraction obtained by using aluminium chloride as gingival retraction agent was maximum (148238.33 µm 2) compared to tetrahydrozoline (140737.87 µm 2) and Expasyl (67784.90 µm 2).
2016
Background: Making an impression for fixed prosthesis require the gingival tissue to be displaced to expose the finish lines on the prepared teeth. Therefore, effectively managing the gingiva prior to making an impression is a critical preliminary step in the process of fabricating restorations. Because of enormous variability of clinical cases, it is not possible to use a single method or impression material for fixed prosthesis. Aims: The aim of this study was to evaluate and compare the amount of lateral displacement by laser and magicfoam retraction systems. Methods and Material: Study was conducted on prepared right or left maxillary central incisor for 30 subjects. The pre and post displacement impressions were made with addition silicone material using two stage double mix technique. Final cast were sectioned longitudinally into equal halves. The sectioned halves were assessed under stereomicroscope. The measurements were made from crest of gingival margin to midbuccal surfac...
International journal of health sciences
Aim: To compare and evaluate the gingival displacement produced by three different gingival retraction materials. Materials and Methods: A study was conducted to evaluate the gingival displacement produced by three gingival retraction materials. 12 subjects were selected for the study. T-stat retraction paste system (Nexobio co.Ltd,Korea), 3M ESPE Retraction Paste (3M Deutschland GmbH, Germany), Roeko Stay- put retraction cord (Coltene Whaledent Pvt. Ltd.) were used in the study. Results: Out of the three materials used, lateral displacement was maximum with the Stay-put retraction cord followed by 3M retraction paste and least by T-Stat retraction paste. All the materials produced acceptable amount of vertical gingival retraction. When compared Stay-put retraction cord was found to be most effective among the three materials. On comparison of the cordless retraction materials, it was found that the material which was more viscous in consistency (3M retraction paste) was able to pr...
Journal of Prosthodontics Dentistry, 2023
The marginal integrity of a restoration depends on the ability of impression material to accurately record the finish lines, which in turn will assure marginal adaptation and restoration aesthetics. To reveal the subgingival finish lines of preparation and to create enough room for the impression material, the gingiva must retracted vertically and horizontally be laterally. The most common and widely used method of gingival retraction uses a cord system for gingival displacement. Due to the technique dependence of gingival displacement with cord, products like expasyl paste and magic foam gel were developed. Thus the primary objective of this study was to determine the amount of gingival retraction achieved in width and depth using impregnated stayput retraction cord compared to magic foam gel and expasyl paste measured in micrometers using stereomicroscope under 10X resolution of the cast obtained before and after retraction which was sliced buccolingually to obtain a three millimetre specimen. Secondary objective was to assess presence or absence of gingival bleeding in the sulcus after retracting all three agents and to determine time taken for placement. Null hypothesis was there is no significant difference in the width and depth of gingival sulcus retracted in fixed prosthodontic treatment using impregnated stay put cord compared to magic foam gel and expasyl paste gingival displacement systems. Results revealed that the null hypothesis was ruled out. Expasyl paste caused the greatest horizontal retraction.The largest vertical retraction was obtained by the impregnated stayput cord. The best hemostatic effect was shown by the magic foam gel retraction system. Applying Expasyl paste to the sulcus required less time.
Statement of Problem: A new material is proposed in dentistry in the form of strips for producing gingival retraction. The clinical efficacy of the material remains untested. Purpose of the Study: This study aimed to determine whether the polyvinyl acetate strips are able to effectively displace the gingival tissues in comparison with the conventional retraction cord. Material and Methods: Complete metal ceramic preparation with supra-gingival margin was performed in fourteen maxillary incisors and gingival retraction was done using Merocel strips and conventional retraction cords alternatively in 2 weeks time interval. The amount of displacement was compared using a digital vernier caliper of 0.01mm accuracy. Results were analyzed statistically using Paired students t-test. Results: The statistical analysis of the data revealed that both the conventional retraction cord and the Merocel strip produce significant retraction. Among both the materials, Merocel proved to be significantly more effective. Conclusion: Merocel strip produces more gingival displacement than the conventional retraction cord.
Journal of oral biology and craniofacial research, 2013
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).
Innovative Publication, 2016
Aim: The aim of the study was to investigate different gingival retraction methods to check for the most accurate method and their effect on gingival and periodontal health. Material and Method: Sixty patients requiring crown on mandibular first molar were divided into four categories: Group I included retraction with plain cord, Group II included retraction with cord soaked in local anaesthetic solution, Group III used Expasyl for retraction and in Group IV Magic foam cord was used. For marginal fit, marginal discrepancy between the measurement coping and the cast was assessed at 8 reference marks using Digital Vernier calipers. Result: This study showed that all retraction techniques caused an acute injury after 1 day of retraction, which took 1 week to heal in the cord (plain and impregnated) and the Magic Foam groups. The Expasyl group had the highest GI compared with others, and showed slower healing. Its use might cause sensitivity in a small number of cases. The use of cordless techniques did not require haemostatic agent to control bleeding during retraction. All the four techniques showed adequate gingival retraction for the prosthesis. Clinically insignificant differences were seen in the four groups regarding the retraction achieved. Conclusion: Within the limitations of the study, it was concluded that all the four methods were effective for gingival retraction. Judicious clinical judgment & skill of the operator are the deciding factors for the selection of any one of the various methods of soft-tissue management.