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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Chaudhari, Jignesh, Prajapati, Paranjay, Patel, Jayanti, Sethuraman, Rajesh, Naveen, Y.G
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