Abstract
The purpose of this study was to evaluate the clinical efficacy of 3 new gingival retraction systems; Stay-put, Magic foam cord and expasyl, on the basis of their relative ease of handling, time taken for placement, hemorrhage control and the amount of gingival retraction. Thirty subjects were selected requiring fixed prosthesis. The 3 gingival retraction systems were used on the prepared abutments randomly. The time taken for placement of each retraction system was recorded. 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 polyether impressions made before the retraction and after retraction. Based on the results, magic foam cord retraction system can be considered more effective gingival retraction system among the three retraction systems used in the study.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Aimjirakul P, Masuda T, Takahashi H, Miura H (2003) Gingival sulcus simulation model for evaluating the penetration characteristics of elastomeric impression materials. Int J Prosthodont 16:385–389
Azzi R, Tsao TF, Carranza FA, Kennedy EB (1983) Comparative study of gingival retraction methods. J Prosthet Dent 50:561–565
Weir DJ, Williams BH (1984) Clinical effectiveness of mechanical–chemical tissue displacement methods. J Prosthet Dent 51:326–329
Woycheshin FF (1964) An evaluation of the drugs used for gingival retraction. J Prosthet Dent 14:769–776
Buchanan WT, Thayer KE (1982) Systemic effects of epinephrine-impregnated retraction cord in fixed partial denture prosthodontics. J Am Dent Assoc 104:482–484
Shaw DH, Krejci RF, Cohen DM (1980) Retraction cords with aluminum chloride: effect on the gingiva. Oper Dent 5:138–141
Kopac I, Cvetko E, Marion L (2002) Gingival Inflammatory response induced by chemical retraction agents in Beagle dogs. Int J Prosthodont 15:14–19
Ferencz JL (1991) Maintaining and enhancing gingival architecture in fixed prosthodontics. J Prosthet Dent 65:650–657
Donovan TE, Winston WL (2004) Current concept in gingival displacement. Dent Clin N Am 48:433–444
Jokstad A (1999) Clinical trial of gingival retraction cords. J Prosthet Dent 81:258–261
La Forgia A (1964) Mechanical–chemical and electrosurgical tissue retraction for fixed prosthesis. J Prosthet Dent 14:1107–1114
Smith GR (1982) A longitudinal study into the depth of clinical gingival sulcus of human canine teeth during and after eruption. J Periodont Res 17:427–433
Smeltzer M (2003) An alternative way to use gingival retraction paste. J Am Dent Assoc 134:1485
Lynch JE, Hinders MK (2002) Ultrasonic device for measuring periodontal attachment levels. Rev Sci Inst 73:2686–2693
Bowles WH, Tardy SJ, Vahadi A (1991) Evaluation of new gingival retraction agents. J Dent Res 70:1447–1449
Darby H, Darby LH (1973) Copper-band gingival retraction to produce void-free crown and bridge impressions. J Prosthet Dent 29:513–516
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Gupta, A., Prithviraj, D.R., Gupta, D. et al. Clinical Evaluation of Three New Gingival Retraction Systems: A Research Report. J Indian Prosthodont Soc 13, 36–42 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13191-012-0140-y
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13191-012-0140-y