Cargando…
Comparative Evaluation of the Clinical Efficacy of Four Different Gingival Retraction Systems: An In Vivo Study
Introduction: There are numerous gingival retraction systems available on the market. This study aimed to evaluate the clinical efficacy of four gingival retraction systems, namely, impregnated retraction cord, gingival retraction capsule, retraction paste, and polyvinyl acetate strips. Methods: A t...
Autores principales: | , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Cureus
2022
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9078289/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35530916 http://dx.doi.org/10.7759/cureus.23923 |
_version_ | 1784702296801673216 |
---|---|
author | Madaan, Rahul Paliwal, Jyoti Sharma, Vineet Meena, Kamal K Dadarwal, Ashish Kumar, Roshni |
author_facet | Madaan, Rahul Paliwal, Jyoti Sharma, Vineet Meena, Kamal K Dadarwal, Ashish Kumar, Roshni |
author_sort | Madaan, Rahul |
collection | PubMed |
description | Introduction: There are numerous gingival retraction systems available on the market. This study aimed to evaluate the clinical efficacy of four gingival retraction systems, namely, impregnated retraction cord, gingival retraction capsule, retraction paste, and polyvinyl acetate strips. Methods: A total of 20 people were chosen for the study, and 100 specimens were collected. The specimens were classified into five groups based on the materials used for gingival displacement. On the first day, a baseline impression without gingival displacement was made. Afterward, impressions were made with any of the following four gingival retraction systems: impregnated retraction cord (SURE-Cord® Plus; Sure Dent Corporation, Jungwon-gu, South Korea), retraction capsule (3M ESPE astringent retraction paste capsule; 3M Corporation, St. Paul, MN), retraction paste (Traxodent® Hemodent® Paste Retraction System; Premier Dental Co., Plymouth Meeting, PA) and polyvinylacetate strips (Merocel; Merocel Co., Mystic, CT), with a 14-day interval between each system. The amount of gingival displacement was measured using an optical microscope as the distance from the tooth to the gingiva crest in a horizontal plane. Results: All experimental groups had higher gingival displacement than the control group (P < 0.01). Among the experimental groups, polyvinyl acetate strips had the highest gingival displacement value (541.65 μm), followed by impregnated retraction cord (505.37 μm), retraction capsule (333.57 μm), and retraction paste (230.63 μm). Conclusion: Within the limits of this in vivo study, significant differences in horizontal gingival displacement were discovered among the four evaluated systems. The horizontal displacement requirements of 200 μm were exceeded by all four systems. The maximum value for gingival displacement was found in polyvinyl acetate strips (Merocel), followed by impregnated retraction cord (SURE-Cord), and retraction capsule (3M ESPE), and the lowest value was found in retraction paste (Traxodent). |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-9078289 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2022 |
publisher | Cureus |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-90782892022-05-07 Comparative Evaluation of the Clinical Efficacy of Four Different Gingival Retraction Systems: An In Vivo Study Madaan, Rahul Paliwal, Jyoti Sharma, Vineet Meena, Kamal K Dadarwal, Ashish Kumar, Roshni Cureus Dentistry Introduction: There are numerous gingival retraction systems available on the market. This study aimed to evaluate the clinical efficacy of four gingival retraction systems, namely, impregnated retraction cord, gingival retraction capsule, retraction paste, and polyvinyl acetate strips. Methods: A total of 20 people were chosen for the study, and 100 specimens were collected. The specimens were classified into five groups based on the materials used for gingival displacement. On the first day, a baseline impression without gingival displacement was made. Afterward, impressions were made with any of the following four gingival retraction systems: impregnated retraction cord (SURE-Cord® Plus; Sure Dent Corporation, Jungwon-gu, South Korea), retraction capsule (3M ESPE astringent retraction paste capsule; 3M Corporation, St. Paul, MN), retraction paste (Traxodent® Hemodent® Paste Retraction System; Premier Dental Co., Plymouth Meeting, PA) and polyvinylacetate strips (Merocel; Merocel Co., Mystic, CT), with a 14-day interval between each system. The amount of gingival displacement was measured using an optical microscope as the distance from the tooth to the gingiva crest in a horizontal plane. Results: All experimental groups had higher gingival displacement than the control group (P < 0.01). Among the experimental groups, polyvinyl acetate strips had the highest gingival displacement value (541.65 μm), followed by impregnated retraction cord (505.37 μm), retraction capsule (333.57 μm), and retraction paste (230.63 μm). Conclusion: Within the limits of this in vivo study, significant differences in horizontal gingival displacement were discovered among the four evaluated systems. The horizontal displacement requirements of 200 μm were exceeded by all four systems. The maximum value for gingival displacement was found in polyvinyl acetate strips (Merocel), followed by impregnated retraction cord (SURE-Cord), and retraction capsule (3M ESPE), and the lowest value was found in retraction paste (Traxodent). Cureus 2022-04-07 /pmc/articles/PMC9078289/ /pubmed/35530916 http://dx.doi.org/10.7759/cureus.23923 Text en Copyright © 2022, Madaan et al. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited. |
spellingShingle | Dentistry Madaan, Rahul Paliwal, Jyoti Sharma, Vineet Meena, Kamal K Dadarwal, Ashish Kumar, Roshni Comparative Evaluation of the Clinical Efficacy of Four Different Gingival Retraction Systems: An In Vivo Study |
title | Comparative Evaluation of the Clinical Efficacy of Four Different Gingival Retraction Systems: An In Vivo Study |
title_full | Comparative Evaluation of the Clinical Efficacy of Four Different Gingival Retraction Systems: An In Vivo Study |
title_fullStr | Comparative Evaluation of the Clinical Efficacy of Four Different Gingival Retraction Systems: An In Vivo Study |
title_full_unstemmed | Comparative Evaluation of the Clinical Efficacy of Four Different Gingival Retraction Systems: An In Vivo Study |
title_short | Comparative Evaluation of the Clinical Efficacy of Four Different Gingival Retraction Systems: An In Vivo Study |
title_sort | comparative evaluation of the clinical efficacy of four different gingival retraction systems: an in vivo study |
topic | Dentistry |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9078289/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35530916 http://dx.doi.org/10.7759/cureus.23923 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT madaanrahul comparativeevaluationoftheclinicalefficacyoffourdifferentgingivalretractionsystemsaninvivostudy AT paliwaljyoti comparativeevaluationoftheclinicalefficacyoffourdifferentgingivalretractionsystemsaninvivostudy AT sharmavineet comparativeevaluationoftheclinicalefficacyoffourdifferentgingivalretractionsystemsaninvivostudy AT meenakamalk comparativeevaluationoftheclinicalefficacyoffourdifferentgingivalretractionsystemsaninvivostudy AT dadarwalashish comparativeevaluationoftheclinicalefficacyoffourdifferentgingivalretractionsystemsaninvivostudy AT kumarroshni comparativeevaluationoftheclinicalefficacyoffourdifferentgingivalretractionsystemsaninvivostudy |