Citation Information :
Rathod A, Jacob SS, MAlqahtani A, Valsan I, Majeed R, Premnath A. Efficacy of Different Gingival Displacement Materials in the Management of Gingival Sulcus Width: A Comparative Study. J Contemp Dent Pract 2021; 22 (6):703-706.
Aim: The aim of this study was to assess the effectiveness of different gingival displacement materials in the management of the width of the gingival sulcus.
Materials and methods: Totally, 60 participants who were aged 18 years and more were chosen for this study. The eligible participants were those who required fixed prosthesis with at least one abutment. A modified sectional tray was used to make impressions with elastomeric materials along with additional polysilicon using the double mix single impression technique. All participants were divided randomly into three experimental groups with each group having 20 participants as follows: group I—Expasyl, group II—Magic Foam Cord, and group III—Traxodent. Soon after retraction, impressions were made and assessed in a comparable manner to pre-retraction impressions. Image analysis software was used to measure the quantity of displacement of the gingiva, marked as the distance from the tooth to the gingival crest in the horizontal level under stereomicroscope.
Results: The highest mean sulcular gingival width (0.644 ± 0.22) was found in Traxodent group followed by Expasyl group (0.590 ± 0.11) and Magic Foam Cord group (0.528 ± 0.01). A statistically significant difference (p<0.001) was found between the groups. Intergroup comparisons between the gingival displacement materials showed a statistically significant difference (p<0.05) between group II and group III.
Conclusion: The present study concluded that all three gingival displacement materials lead to gingival displacement, which is needed for impression making. Slightly more retraction was seen in the Traxodent group when compared to the Expasyl group and Magic Foam Cord group.
Clinical significance: The success of fixed prosthodontic treatment depends upon precision and accuracy in every step involved in the procedure. One of the most vital stepsis making precise impressions in relation to dimensional accuracy, tear strength, etc. It is essential to have an adequate thickness of the impression material along the margins to avoid distortion. This objective can be achieved by acceptable gingival retraction.
Rayyan MM, Hussien ANM, Sayed NM, et al. Comparison of four cordless gingival displacement systems: aclinical study. J Prosthet Dent 2019;121(2):265–270. DOI: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2018.05.010.
Koth DL. Full crown restorations and gingival inflammation in a controlled population. J Prosthet Dent 1982;48(6):681–685. DOI: 10.1016/s0022-3913(82)80028-0.
Sachdev PA, Arora A, Nanda S. A comparative evaluation of different gingival retraction methods: an in vivo study. Oral Health Case Rep 2018;4:142. DOI: 10.4172/2471-8726.1000142.
Bennani V, Inger M, John M. Arts comparison of pressure generated by cordless gingival displacement materials. J Prosthet Dent 2014;112(2):163–167. DOI: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2013.09.035.
Gupta R, Aggarwal R, Siddiqui Z. Comparison of various methods of gingival retraction on gingival and Periodontal health and marginal fit. Int J Oral Health Dent 2016;2(4):243–247. DOI: 10.18231/2395-499X.2016.0012.
Kohli PK, Hegde V. Comparative evaluation of efficacy of gingival retraction using chemical and mechanical methods: an in vivo study. Asian J Pharm Clin Res 2018;11(2):128–131. DOI: 10.22159/ajpcr.2018.v11i2.22674.
Agarwal A, Lahori M, Arora S. A comparative evaluation of two contemporary cordless methods of gingival retraction – an in vivo study. J Interdiscip Dent2019;9(2):51–58. DOI: 10.4103/jid.jid_79_18.
Gajbhiye V, Banerjee R, Jaiswal P, et al. Comparative evaluation of three gingival displacement materials for efficacy in tissue management and dimensional accuracy. J Indian Prosthodont Soc 2019;19(2):173–179. DOI: 10.4103/jips.jips_285_18.
Shillingburg HT, Hobo S, Whitsett LD, editors. Fundamentals of fixed prosthodontics. Chicago: Quintessence; 1997. p. 260–276.
Gupta A, Prithviraj DR, Gupta D, et al. Clinical evaluation of three new gingival retraction systems: aresearch report. J Indian ProsthodontSoc 2013;13(1):36–42. DOI: 10.1007/s13191-012-0140-y.
Smeltzer M. An alternative way to use gingival retraction paste. J Am Dent Assoc 2003;134(11):1485. DOI: 10.14219/jada.archive.2003.0078.
Phatale S, Marawar PP, Byakod G, et al. Effect of retraction materials on gingival health: ahistopathological study. J Indian Soc Periodontol 2010;14(1):35–39. DOI: 10.4103/0972-124X.65436.
Kazemi M, Memarian M, Loran V. Comparing the effectiveness of two gingival retraction procedures on gingival recession and tissue displacement: clinical study. Res J Bio Sci 2009:4(3);335–339. https://medwelljournals.com/abstract/?doi=rjbsci.2009.335.339.
Raghav D, Singh S, Kola MZ, 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.
Thimmappa M, Bhatia M, Somani P, et al. Comparative evaluation of three noninvasive gingival displacement systems: an in vivo study. J Indian ProsthodontSoc2018;18(2):122–130. DOI: 10.4103/jips.jips_225_17.
Singh AA, Rao BK, Gujjari AK. Evaluation of gingival displacement using foam cord and retraction cord: an in vivo study. J Int Oral Health2019;11(1):8–12. DOI: 10.4103/jioh.jioh_169_18.
Chaudhari J, Prajapati P, Patel J, et al. Comparative evaluation of the amount of gingival displacement produced by three different gingival retraction systems: an in vivo study. ContempClin Dent 2015;6(2):189–195. DOI: 10.4103/0976-237X.156043.
