COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF EFFICACY OF GINGIVAL RETRACTION USING CHEMICAL AND MECHANICAL METHODS: AN IN VIVO STUDY

  • Parampreet Kaur Kohli Department of Prosthodontics and Crown and Bridge, Manipal College of Dental Sciences, Manipal University, Manipal, Karnataka, India.
  • Veena Hegde Department of Prosthodontics and Crown and Bridge, Manipal College of Dental Sciences, Manipal University, Manipal, Karnataka, India. http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4856-7797

Abstract

 Objective: The purpose of this in vivo study was to compare and evaluate the clinical efficacy of two gingival retraction systems; Ultrapak and Traxodent, on the basis of the amount of gingival retraction achieved in vertical and horizontal direction and their hemorrhage control.

Methods: A total of 60 subjects were selected requiring fixed prosthesis. The two gingival retraction systems were used on the prepared abutments randomly. The vertical gingival retraction was measured before and after retraction using flexible measuring strip with 0.5 mm grading. The horizontal retraction was measured on the casts poured in polysilicone impressions made before the retraction and after retraction.

Results: Statistically significant difference (p<0.05) was found between the amount of the retraction (vertical and horizontal) achieved by Ultrapak as compared to Traxodent. However, in achieving hemostasis Traxodent showed better efficiency than Ultrapak (p<0.05).

Conclusion: The mean retraction width and depth achieved with retraction cord (Ultrapak) was significantly greater when compared with retraction paste. Although retraction paste (Traxodent) showed bleeding index significantly less when compared to that of retraction cord (Ultrapak).

Keywords: Gingival retraction, Ultrapak, Traxodent, Hemostatic control.

References

1. Acar O, Erkut S, Ozcelik TB, Ozdemir E, Akcil M. Comparison of cordless and conventional displacement system regarding clinical performance and impression quality. J Prosthet Dent 2014;111:388-94.
2. Felton DA, Kanoy BE, Bayne SC, Wirthman GP. Effect of in vivo crown margin discrepancies on periodontal health. J Prosthet Dent 1991;65:357-64.
3. Chandra S, Singh A, Gupta KK, Chandra C, Arora V. Effect of gingival displacement cord and cordless systems on the closure, displacement, and inflammation of the gingival crevice. J Prosthet Dent 2016;115:177-82.
4. Bennani V, Inger M, John M. Arts comparison of pressure generated by cordless gingival displacement materials. J Prosthet Dent 2014;112:163-7.
5. Al-Ani A, Bennani V, Chandler NP, Lyons KM, Thomson WM. New Zealand dentists’ use of gingival retraction techniques for fixed prosthodontics and implants. N Z Dent J 2010;106:92-6.
6. Madhulaxmi M, Wahab PU. Can aspirin be continued during dental extraction? Int J Pharm Pharm Sci 2014;6:20-3.
7. Kumar S. Local hemostatic agents in the management of bleeding in oral surgery. Asian J Pharm Clin Res 2016;9:35-41.
8. Kumar S. Dental management of patients on antiplatelet therapy: Literature update. Asian J Pharm Clin Res 2016;9:26-31.
9. Neha MM, Kishore NG. Orodental delivery systems: An overview. Int J Pharm Pharm Sci 2013;5:74-83.
10. Donovan TE, Gandara BK, Nemetz H. Review and survey of medicaments used with gingival retraction cords. J Prosthet Dent 1985;53:525-31.
11. Baharav H, Kupershmidt I, Laufer BZ, Cardash HS. The effect of sulcular width on the linear accuracy of impression materials in the presence of an undercut. Int J Prosthodont 2004;17:585-9.
12. Johnson GH, Mancl LA, Schwedhelm ER, Verhoef DR, Lepe X. Clinical trial investigating success rates for polyether and vinyl polysiloxane impressions made with full-arch and dual-arch plastic trays. J Prosthet Dent 2010;103:13-22.
13. Al Hamad KQ, Azar WZ, Alwaeli HA, Said KN. A clinical study on the effects of cordless and conventional retraction techniques on the gingival and periodontal health. J Clin Periodontol 2008;35:1053-8.
14. Yang JC, Tsai CM, Chen MS, Wei JY, Lee SY, Lin TL. Clinical study of a newly developed injection-type gingival retraction material. Chin Dent J 2005;24:147-51.
15. Cooper K, Bennani V, Tawse-Smith A, Reid M, Dias GS. Effect of a cordless retraction paste on titanium surface: A topographic, chemical and biocompatibility evaluation. Braz Oral Res 2013;27:211-7.
16. Gupta A, Prithviraj DR, Gupta D, Shruti DP. Clinical evaluation of three new gingival retraction systems: A research report. J Indian Prosthodont Soc 2013;13:36-42.
17. Prasanna GS, Reddy K, Kumar RK, Shivaprakash S. Evaluation of efficacy of different gingival displacement materials on gingival sulcus width. J Contemp Dent Pract 2013;14:217-21.
Statistics
358 Views | 359 Downloads
How to Cite
Kohli, P., and V. Hegde. “COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF EFFICACY OF GINGIVAL RETRACTION USING CHEMICAL AND MECHANICAL METHODS: AN IN VIVO STUDY”. Asian Journal of Pharmaceutical and Clinical Research, Vol. 11, no. 2, Feb. 2018, pp. 128-31, doi:10.22159/ajpcr.2018.v11i2.22674.
Section
Original Article(s)