Aim: To analyze the clinical effectiveness of three new gingival retraction systems: knitted retraction cord, expanding polyvinyl siloxane, and aluminium chloride containing paste.
Materials and methods: Twenty patients were enrolled with age-group of more than 18 years and who required fixed prosthesis with minimum of two abutments. A preliminary impression of the arch was made with a stock metal tray and irreversible hydrocolloid impression material. Group WR—impression without retraction, Group A—impression after retraction with gingival retraction cord, Group B—impression after retraction with expanding polyvinyl siloxane, and Group C—impression after retraction with aluminium chloride containing paste. A total of four impressions were made for each abutment tooth. Each impression was given a label 1WR, 1A, 1B, 1C—20WR, 20A, 20B, 20C: where 1 denoted the sample number. Comparison of the stereomicroscopic images was done using image analysis software. Time required from start of placement of gingival displacement agents till completion was recorded in seconds with the help of a stop clock.
Results: The mean gingival retraction was found to be the highest for subjects of Group C followed by Group A, Group B, and Group WR. This difference was found to be statistically significant. Highly significant mean difference in time of placement was observed between Group A and Group B, between Group B and Group C, and between Group C and Group A.
Conclusion: The aluminium chloride containing paste was found effective in almost all the variables considered.
Clinical Significance: The choice of particular gingival retraction system/technique is dependent upon the clinical variables and on operator\'s preference.
Livaditis G. The matrix impression system for fixed prosthodontics. J Prosthet Dent 1998;79(2):208–216. DOI: 10.1016/s0022-3913(98) 70217-3.
Shillingburg HT, Hobo S, Whittsett LD, et al. Fundamentals of fixed prosthodontics (3rd ed) Chicago, IL. Quintessence Int 1997;3:257–259.
Ferrari M, Cagidiaco M, Ercoli C. Tissue management with a new gingival retraction material: a preliminary clinical report. J Prosthet Dent 1996;75(3):242–247. DOI: 10.1016/s0022-3913(96)90479-5.
Cimma R, Cravero M, Farina G, et al. Tissue management with the Nd:YAG laser: a clinical report. J Oral Laser Appl 2007;7(2):107–113.
Harrison J. Effect of retraction materials on the gingival sulcus epithelium. J Prosthet Dent 1961;11(3):514–521. DOI: 10.1016/0022-3913(61)90234-7.
Loe H, Odont D, Silness J. Tissue reactions to string packs used in fixed prosthodontics. J Prosthet Dent 1963;13(2):318–323.
Mehta S, Virani H, Memon S, et al. A comparative evaluation of efficacy of gingival retraction using polyvinyl siloxane foam retraction system, vinyl polysiloxane paste retraction system, and copper wire reinforced retraction cord in endodontically treated teeth: an in vivo study. Contemp Clin Dent 2019;10(3):428–432. DOI: 10.4103/ccd.ccd_708_18.
Gupta A, Prithviraj DR, Gupta D, et al. Clinical evaluation of three new gingival retraction systems: a research report. J Indian Prosthodont Soc 2013;13(1):36–42. DOI: 10.1007/s13191-012-0140-y.
Raghav D, Singh S, Kola M, et al. A comparative clinical and quantitative evaluation of the efficacy of conventional and recent gingival retraction systems: an in vitro study. Eur J Prosthodont 2014;2(3):76–81. DOI: 10.4103/2347-4610.140514.
Qureshi SM, Anasane NS, Kakade D. Comparative evaluation of the amount of gingival displacement using three recent gingival retraction systems–in vivo study. Contemp Clin Dent 2020;11(1):28–33. DOI: 10.4103/ccd.ccd_311_19.