The Journal of Contemporary Dental Practice

Register      Login



Volume / Issue

Online First

Related articles

VOLUME 19 , ISSUE 5 ( 2018 ) > List of Articles


Clinical Assessment of Gingival Sulcus Width using Various Gingival Displacement Materials

Md Jalaluddin, GB Goutham, Joseph Joy, Ipsita Jayanti, Anisha Avijeeta

Keywords : Aluminum chloride, Gingival displacement, Laser, Magic foam

Citation Information : Jalaluddin M, Goutham G, Joy J, Jayanti I, Avijeeta A. Clinical Assessment of Gingival Sulcus Width using Various Gingival Displacement Materials. J Contemp Dent Pract 2018; 19 (5):502-506.

DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10024-2290

License: CC BY-NC 3.0

Published Online: 01-06-2018

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2018; The Author(s).


Aim: This study aims to compare the clinical efficacy of three different gingival retraction systems on gingival sulcus width. Materials and methods: Study was conducted on prepared right or left maxillary central incisor for 45 subjects. Totally, 15 patients were randomly allocated in three gingival displacement groups, i.e., group I (retraction cord impregnated with aluminum chloride), group II (magic foam), and group III (laser). The pre- and postdisplacement impressions were made with addition silicone material using two-stage double mix technique. Results: There was no difference between the groups at baseline. Group III produced more displacement (mean value 0.48 ± 0.101 mm) than group II (mean value 0.31 ± 0.09 mm) and group I (mean value 0.44 ± 0.11 mm), and this was statistically significant. Conclusion: Laser gingival displacement system was found to be effective among the three retraction systems. Choice of gingival displacement system is based on clinical situation and choice of operator. Clinical significance: The retraction groups in the study created greater amount of gingival retraction than the least sulcus width required for the elastomeric impression material and so are clinically useful.

PDF Share
  1. Gupta D, Bhide SV, Gandhi PV, Paliwal J. Comparative evaluation of clinical efficacy of two different retraction systems—an in-vivo study. Indian J Stomatol 2012 Jan;3(1):7-13.
  2. Rosenstiel, SF.; Land, MF.; Fujimoto, J. Contemporary fixed prosthodontics. 4th ed. China: Mosby; 2006. p. 431.
  3. The glossary of prosthodontic terms. J Prosthet Dent 2005 Jul;94(1):10-92.
  4. Koth DL. Full crown restorations and gingival inflammation in a controlled population. J Prosthet Dent 1982 Dec;48(6):681-685.
  5. Wilson RD, Maynard G. Intracrevicular restorative dentistry. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent 1981;1(4):34-49.
  6. Jokstad A. Clinical trial of gingival retraction cords. J Prosthet Dent 1999 Mar;81(3):258-261.
  7. Kadam P, Bhalerao S. Sample size calculation. Int J Ayurveda Res 2010 Jan-Mar;1(1):55-57.
  8. Prasad KD, Hegde C, Agrawal G, Shetty M. Gingival displacement in prosthodontics: a critical review of existing methods. J Interdiscip Dent 2011 Sep;1(2):80-86.
  9. Kumbuloglu O, User A, Toksavul S, Boyacioglu H. Clinical evaluation of different gingival retraction cords. Quintessence Int 2007 Feb;38(2):e92-e98.
  10. Shivasakthy M, Asharaf Ali S. Comparative study on the efficacy of gingival retraction using polyvinyl acetate strips and conventional retraction cord—an in vivo study. J Clin Diagn Res 2013 Oct;7(10):2368-2371.
  11. Kellam SA, Smith JR, Scheffel SJ. Epinephrine absorption from commercial gingival retraction cords in clinical patients. J Prosthet Dent 1992 Nov;68(5):761-765.
  12. Shannon A. Expanded clinical uses of a novel tissue retraction material. Compend Contin Educ Dent 2002 Jan;23 (Suppl 1):3-6.
  13. Land MF, Couri CC, Johnston WM. Smear layer instability caused by hemostatic agents. J Prosthet Dent 1996 Nov;76(5):477-482.
  14. Acar Ö, Erkut S, Özçelik TB, Ozdemýr E, Akçil M. A clinical comparison of cordless and conventional displacement systems regarding clinical performance and impression quality. J Prosthet Dent 2014 May;111(5):388-394.
  15. Raghav D, Singh S, Kola MZ, Shah AH, Khalil HS, Kumar P. A comparative clinical and quantitative evaluation of the efficacy of conventional and recent gingival retraction systems: an in vitro study. Eur J Prosthodont 2014 Sep-Dec;2(3):76-81.
  16. Krishna CV, Gupta N, Reddy KM, Sekhar NC, Aditya V, Reddy GV. Laser gingival retraction: a quantitative assessment. J Clin Diagn Res 2013 Aug;7(8):1787-1788.
  17. Dawani M, Sathe S, Godbole SR. Comparative evaluation of clinical efficacy of two new gingival retraction systems—an in vivo research. Int J Sci Res 2016 Nov;5(11):4-10.
  18. Gherlone EF, Maiorana C, Grassi RF, Ciancaglini R, Cattoni F. The use of 980-nm diode and 1064-nm Nd: YAG laser for gingival retraction in fixed prostheses. J Oral Laser Appl 2004 Fall;4(3):183-190.
  19. Marsch A. Use of a diode laser for gingival troughing in conservative and prosthetic dentistry. Int Mag Laser Dent 2004;4:30-31.
PDF Share
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.