Background: Gingival retraction helps in achieving good quality impressions. These are needed for a precision fit and long-term success with fixed prosthodontic restorations.
Aim: This study aimed to evaluate the clinical efficiency of gingival displacement obtained using Expasyl, Magic foam cord and Medicated retraction cord.
Materials and methods: One hundred twenty patients with the requirement of full veneer crowns were selected. They were divided into three groups, forty subjects in each group (twenty subjects by each operator) namely Expasyl, Magic foam cord and Medicated retraction cord. The impressions obtained before and after placing the retraction system were poured with type IV die stone. The casts obtained before and after placing the retraction system were coded in a blind fashion to avoid the influence of the operator. The casts were viewed under tool maker microscope “10X” magnification for the amount of both depth and width of gingival displacement.
Results: Mesial, distal, mid-buccal, mid-lingual were taken as reference points and for Medicated retraction cord, Expasyl and Magic foam cord the mean values are 0.50mm, 0.49mm and 0.29mm respectively in horizontal displacement and 0.56mm, 0.47mm and 0.31mm respectively in vertical displacement. One way ANOVA was used to calculate the p-value and multiple range test by the Tukey-HSD analysis to identify significant groups at 5% level. The level of significance for all tests was set as p < 0.05.
Conclusion: Within the limitations of this study, Magic foam cord showed the ease of placement followed by Expasyl retraction system and Medicated retraction cord.
Clinical significance: Gingival retraction helps in achieving good quality impressions. These are needed for a precision fit and long-term success with fixed prosthodontic restorations. Selecting techniques and materials that produce transient retraction and dry field without irreversible damages to the tissues is of utmost importance.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
- Nemetz H. Tissue management in fixed prosthodontics. J Prosthet Dent 1974;31(6):628-36.
- Padbury Jr A, Eber R, Wang HL. Interactions between the gingiva and the margin of restorations. Journal of Clinical Periodontology 2003;30(5):379-85.https://doi.org/10.1034/j.1600-051X.2003.01277.x
- Adnan S, Agwan MA. Gingival retraction techniques: a review. Dent Update 2018;45(4):284-97.
- D'Costa VF, Bangera MK. Advancements in Gingival Retraction Techniques in Restorative Dentistry. Int J Sci Res. 2017;6(4):252-54.
- Safari S, Ma VS, Mi VS, Hoseini Ghavam F, Hamedi M. Gingival retraction methods for fabrication of fixed partial denture: Literature review. J Dent Biomater. 2016;3(2):205-13.
- Raja Z, Nair C. A clinical study on gingival retraction. J Ind Prosth Soc 2003;3:21-7.
- Laufer BZ, Baharav H, Langer Y, Cardash HS. The closure of the gingival crevice following gingival retraction for impression making. J Oral Rehab 1997;24(9):629-35. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2842.1997.00558.x
- Nemetz H, Donovan T, Landesman H. Exposing the gingival margin: A systematic approach for the control of hemorrhage. J Prosthet Dent 1984;51(5):647-51. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-3913(84)90410-4
- Donovan TE, Chee WW. Current concepts in gingival displacement. Dent Clin N Am 2004;48(2):vi-433. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cden.2003.12.012
- Woody RD, Miller A, Staffanou RS. Review of the pH of hemostatic agents used in tissue displacement. J Prosthet Dent 1993;70(2):191-2. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-3913(93)90018-J
- Thimmappa M, Bhatia M, Somani P, Kumar DR. Comparative evaluation of three noninvasive gingival displacement systems: An in vivo study. J Indian Prosthodont Soc. 2018;18(2):122-30. https://doi.org/10.4103/jips.jips_225_17
- Singh AA, Rao BK, Gujjari AK. Evaluation of gingival displacement using foam cord and retraction cord: An in vivo study. J Int Oral Health. 2019 Jan 1;11(1):8-12. https://doi.org/10.4103/jioh.jioh_169_18