Cargando…
Comparative evaluation of the amount of gingival displacement produced by three different gingival retraction systems: An in vivo study
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 t...
Autores principales: | , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Medknow Publications & Media Pvt Ltd
2015
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4456740/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26097353 http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/0976-237X.156043 |
_version_ | 1782374875563819008 |
---|---|
author | Chaudhari, Jignesh Prajapati, Paranjay Patel, Jayanti Sethuraman, Rajesh Naveen, Y.G |
author_facet | Chaudhari, Jignesh Prajapati, Paranjay Patel, Jayanti Sethuraman, Rajesh Naveen, Y.G |
author_sort | Chaudhari, Jignesh |
collection | PubMed |
description | 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)). |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-4456740 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2015 |
publisher | Medknow Publications & Media Pvt Ltd |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-44567402015-06-19 Comparative evaluation of the amount of gingival displacement produced by three different gingival retraction systems: An in vivo study Chaudhari, Jignesh Prajapati, Paranjay Patel, Jayanti Sethuraman, Rajesh Naveen, Y.G Contemp Clin Dent Original Article 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)). Medknow Publications & Media Pvt Ltd 2015 /pmc/articles/PMC4456740/ /pubmed/26097353 http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/0976-237X.156043 Text en Copyright: © Contemporary Clinical Dentistry http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0 This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 3.0 Unported, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. |
spellingShingle | Original Article Chaudhari, Jignesh Prajapati, Paranjay Patel, Jayanti Sethuraman, Rajesh Naveen, Y.G Comparative evaluation of the amount of gingival displacement produced by three different gingival retraction systems: An in vivo study |
title | Comparative evaluation of the amount of gingival displacement produced by three different gingival retraction systems: An in vivo study |
title_full | Comparative evaluation of the amount of gingival displacement produced by three different gingival retraction systems: An in vivo study |
title_fullStr | Comparative evaluation of the amount of gingival displacement produced by three different gingival retraction systems: An in vivo study |
title_full_unstemmed | Comparative evaluation of the amount of gingival displacement produced by three different gingival retraction systems: An in vivo study |
title_short | Comparative evaluation of the amount of gingival displacement produced by three different gingival retraction systems: An in vivo study |
title_sort | comparative evaluation of the amount of gingival displacement produced by three different gingival retraction systems: an in vivo study |
topic | Original Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4456740/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26097353 http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/0976-237X.156043 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT chaudharijignesh comparativeevaluationoftheamountofgingivaldisplacementproducedbythreedifferentgingivalretractionsystemsaninvivostudy AT prajapatiparanjay comparativeevaluationoftheamountofgingivaldisplacementproducedbythreedifferentgingivalretractionsystemsaninvivostudy AT pateljayanti comparativeevaluationoftheamountofgingivaldisplacementproducedbythreedifferentgingivalretractionsystemsaninvivostudy AT sethuramanrajesh comparativeevaluationoftheamountofgingivaldisplacementproducedbythreedifferentgingivalretractionsystemsaninvivostudy AT naveenyg comparativeevaluationoftheamountofgingivaldisplacementproducedbythreedifferentgingivalretractionsystemsaninvivostudy |