Statement of Problem:Tetrahydrozoline has been introduced as new gingival retraction agent but its clinical efficacy with widely used conventional retraction agents has not been tested.Purpose:The study was designed to clinically evaluate efficacy of newer retraction agent tetrahydrozoline with two widely used retraction systems i.e., Expasyl retraction system and medicated retraction cords on basis of amount of gingival retraction.Materials and Methods:30 subjects were selected according to inclusion and exclusion criteria. Maxillary Impressions were made with irreversible hydrocolloid for all subjects. Tray material was used for making the special tray. Latin Block Design was Used in the Study to avoid tissue fatigue. Retraction was done with aluminium chloride; Tetrahydrozoline and Expasyl according to Latin block design. Impressions were poured with die stone. Casts were retrieved and sections were made with die cutter. 3 mm thin slices were obtained. Each slice was used to measure the amount of retraction under stereomicroscope under 20x and images were transferred to image analyser.Results:The amount of gingival retraction obtained by using aluminium chloride as gingival retraction agent was maximum (148238.33 μm2) compared to tetrahydrozoline (140737.87 μm2) and Expasyl (67784.90 μm2).

Introduction:In the modern competitive society, a pleasing appearance often dictates the difference between success and failure in both our personal and professional lives. Evaluation of gingival biotype is very important from the start of treatment plan to the final restorative placement to provide excellent esthetics.Materials and Methodology:For the study, subjects were divided into 4 groups of different ages, from 20-30, 31-40, 41-50 and 51-60 years. 30 subjects (15 men and 15 women) were selected in each group for the study. Examination of the thickness of Gingival Biotype was done in 3 different ways; - Direct visual, William's Graduated Probe and Using modified wax caliper.Results:The McNemar test showed statistically significant differences in the way gingival biotype was identified when comparing visual assessment with assessment using direct measurement (P < 0.001). And there was no statistically significant difference when assessment using a periodontal probe was compared to direct measurement (P < 0.676). There is no correlation for the Biotype among the different age groups.Conclusion:Gingival biotype identification by visual assessment is statistically significantly different from assessment with direct measurement. Gingival biotype identification by assessment with a periodontal probe is not statistically significantly different from direct measurement.

No abstract

Analysis of the short- and long-term studies shows lesser retention failures with cement-retained prostheses when compared to screw-retained prostheses. Further, multicentric, high-quality randomized controlled studies with long-term observations and modified cementation protocols can yield higher grades of recommendation to avoid retention failures.