An Evaluation of the Efficacy and Effect on Soft Tissues of Different Commercially Available Gingival Displacement Systems - An In Vivo Study
Efficacy And Effect On Soft Tissues Of Different Commercially Available Gingival Displacement System
Keywords:
Gingival-displacement, displacement cord, 15% aluminium chloride, polyvinyl acetate stripsAbstract
Background & Objective: Gingival-displacement is carried out for successful clinical outcome of the restoration; hence the objective of the study is to investigate the clinical outcome of 3 different gingival-displacement systems in terms of (1) the amount of displacement and (2) the presence of gingival recession 14 days post-displacement, if any. Methods: 20 completely dentate male and female individuals with healthy periodontium were selected. Gingival displacement was done using Ultrapak (gingival-displacement Cord), Expasyl (15% aluminium chloride paste), and Merocel (polyvinyl acetate strips) on selected teeth as per manufacturer’s instructions. Impressions were made with Monophase addition silicone immediately before gingival-displacement, immediately after gingival-displacement and on 14th day post-displacement. Evaluation was done under a 3-D microscope, by comparing the samples of (1) before and after group, and (2) before and 14th day post-displacement group. Results and Interpretation: Tukey’s Post Hoc test revealed statistically significant results for Merocel when compared with Expasyl and Ultrapak with difference in mean value being 0.455, 0.273, and 0.286mm respectively (p-value<0.001). There was no statistically significant difference between Expasyl and Ultrapak, also between the samples of before and 14th day post-displacement group. Thus there was no trauma to gingiva as observed in 14th day post-displacement group. Conclusion: Merocel produced the maximum amount of gingival-displacement than Expasyl and Ultrapak, and also all the materials used did not affect the gingival health adversely. [Shivangini Z NJIRM 2017; 8(2):62-64]
References
2. 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;35:1053-1058.
3. Bowels W, Tardy S, Vahadi A. Evaluation of new gingival retraction agents J Dent Res 1991;70:1447-9.
4. Donovan TE, Chee WWL. Current concepts in gingival displacement. Dent Clin N Am 2004;48:433-44.
5. Shivashakthy M, Ali SA. Comparative study on the efficacy of gingival retraction using polyvinyl actate strips and conventional retraction cord – an invivo study. J Clin Diag Res 2013;7:2368-2371.
6. Ferrari M, Cagidiaco MC, and Ercoli C. Tissue management with a new gingival retraction material: A preliminary clinical report. J Prosthet Dent 1996;75:242-7.
7. Prasanna GR, Reddy K, Naveen K, Shivprakash S. Evaluation of efficacy of different gingival materials on gingival sulcus width. J Cont Dent Prac 2013;14:217-221.
8. Kazemi M, Memarian M, and Loran V. Comparing the effectiveness of two gingival retraction procedures on gingival recession and tissue displacement: Clinical study. Res J Biol Sci 2009;4:335-339.
9. Chandra S, Singh A, Gupta K, Cahndra 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;115:296-300.
10. Feng J, Weiner S, Aboyoussef H, Singh S, and Jandinski J. The effect of gingival retraction procedures on periodontal indices and crevicular fluid cytokine levels: a pilot study. J Clin Periodontol 2006;15:108-112.
11. Ruel J, Schuessler PJ, Malament K , Mori D. Effect of retraction procedures on the periodontium in humans. J Prosthet Dent 1980;44:508-515.
12. Wassell R, Barker D, Walls A. Crowns and other extra-coronal restorations: impression materials and techniques. British Dent J 2002;192:679-90.
