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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Madaan, Rahul, Paliwal, Jyoti, Sharma, Vineet, Meena, Kamal K, Dadarwal, Ashish, Kumar, Roshni
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