Comparative evaluation of gingival displacement produced by three different gingival retraction materials: An in-vivo study

Anjali Lathwal; Salil Pawah; Neha Jain; Amit Gupta

doi:10.53730/ijhs.v6nS9.13323

Authors

Anjali Lathwal
anjalilathwal103@gmail.com
PG Student, Department of Prosthodontics, Crown & Bridge, Sudha Rustagi College of Dental Sciences and Research, Faridabad
Salil Pawah Professor & Head, Department of Prosthodontics, Crown & Bridge, Sudha Rustagi College of Dental Sciences and Research, Faridabad
Neha Jain Professor, Department of Prosthodontics, Crown & Bridge, Sudha Rustagi College of Dental Sciences and Research, Faridabad
Amit Gupta Professor, Department of Prosthodontics, Crown & Bridge, Sudha Rustagi College of Dental Sciences and Research, Faridabad

Keywords:

Cordless retraction, Gingival displacement, FPD impressions, Retraction cord

Abstract

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 produce more lateral gingival displacement than the material having less viscosity (T-stat retraction paste) even though both the cordless materials provided almost similar amount of vertical gingival displacement. The overall gingival retraction produced by the Stay-put cord was the highest followed by 3M retraction paste and least by the T-stat retraction paste.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Safari S, Ma VS, Mi VS, Hoseini GF, Hamedi M. Gingival retraction methods for fabrication of fixed partial denture: literature review. J Dent Biomater 2016;3(2):205-13.

Samet N, Shohat M, Livny A, Weiss EI. A clinical evaluation of fixed partial denture impressions. J Prosthet Dent 2005;94(2):112-7.

Katreva I, Doychinova M. Adequate gingival retraction as prerequisite for fabrication of precise fixed partial dentures-algorithm for clinical implementation. Scripta Scientifica Medicinae Dentalis. 2017;3(2):13-7.

Shillingburg HT, Sather DA, Wilson EL, Cain JR, Mitchell DL, Blanco LJ et al. Fundamentals of fixed prosthodontics.4th ed. Quintessence Publishing Company; 2012:273p.

Benson BW, Bomberg TJ, Hatch RA, Hoffman W., Jr Tissue displacement methods in fixed prosthodontics. J Prosthet Dent. 1986;55:175–81.

Qureshi SM, Anasane NS, Kakade D. Comparative evaluation of the amount of gingival displacement using three recent gingival retraction systems–In vivo study. Contemp Clin Dent. 2020;11(1):28-33.

Weir DJ, Williams BH. Clinical effectiveness of mechanical-chemical tissue displacement methods. J Prosthet Dent. 1984;51(3):326-9.

Laufer BZ, Baharav H, Cardash HS. The linear accuracy of impressions and stone dies as affected by the thickness of the impression margin. Int J Prosthodont.1994;7(3):247-52

Lacy AM, Fukui H, Bellman T, Jendresen MD. Time-dependent accuracy of elastomer impression materials. Part II: Polyether, polysulfides, and polyvinylsiloxane. J Prosthet Dent. 1981;45:329–33.

Bowles WH, Tardy SJ, Vahadi A. Evaluation of new gingival retraction agents. J Dent Res. 1991;70(11):1447-9.

Chaudhari J, Prajapati P, Patel J, Sethuraman R, Naveen YG. Comparative evaluation of the amount of gingival displacement produced by three different gingival retraction systems: An in vivo study. Contemp Clin Dent. 2015;6(2):189-95.

Naveen YG, Patil R. Effect of the impression margin thickness on the linear accuracy of impression and stone dies: an in vitro study. J Indian Prosthodont Soc. 2013;13(1):13-8.

Laufer BZ, Baharav H, Ganor Y, Cardash HS. The effect of marginal thickness on the distortion of different impression materials. J Prosthet Dent. 1996;76:466-71.

Gupta A, Prithviraj DR, Gupta D, Shruti DP. Clinical evaluation of three new gingival retraction systems: A research report. J Indian Prosthodont Soc. 2013;13(1):36- 42.

Prasanna GR, Reddy K, Kumar RN, Shivaprakash S. Evaluation of efficacy of different gingival displacement materials on gingival sulcus width. J Contemp Dent Pract. 2013;14(2):217-21.

Yang JC, Tsai CM, Chen MS, Wei JY, Lee SY, Lin CT. Clinical study of a newly developed injection-type gingival retraction material. Chinese Dental Journal. 2005;24(3):147-51.

Acar O, Erkut S, Ozcelik TB, Ozdemir E, Akcil M. A clinical comparison of cordless and conventional displacement systems regarding clinical performance and impression quality. J Prosthet Dent. 2014;111(5):388-94.

Agarwal A, Lahori M, Arora S. A comparative evaluation of two contemporary cordless methods of gingival retraction - An in vivo study. J Interdiscip Dentistry 2019;9:51-8.