Comparative evaluation of three gingival displacement materials for efficacy in tissue management and dimensional accuracy

Abstract

Aim: Displacement of gingiva is essential for obtaining accurate impressions for the fabrication of fixed prostheses, particularly when the finish line is at or within the gingival sulcus. Various newer impression materials have been introduced to achieve gingival displacement while recording the impressions. A comparative evaluation of these new gingival displacement materials was deemed necessary for efficacy in tissue management and dimensional accuracy. Materials and Methods: Ten individuals were selected according to the inclusion and exclusion criteria for gingival displacement using retraction cord impregnated with aluminum chloride and two polyvinyl siloxane impression materials (Aquasil and NoCord VPS impression system) according to Latin block design. Intraoral scanner and Vernier caliper were used to study and compare the dimensional accuracy of each die obtained following which the dies were sectioned and evaluated under optical microscope with image analyzer to measure the amount of gingival retraction. Results and Conclusion: Statistical analysis showed that the amount of gingival retraction obtained by using retraction cord impregnated with aluminum chloride as gingival retraction agent was maximum as compared to NoCord followed by Aquasil. All three gingival displacement techniques could produce gingival displacement >0.2 mm which is the optimum amount of retraction required for impression making. All the three materials are found to be dimensionally accurate.

A Clinical Study of 50 Partially Edentulous Patients with Fixed Partial Denture Restorations to Compare Clinical Parameters and Changes in Gingival Sulcus Width After Displacement with 2 Different Gingival Retraction Cord Materials (Cotton and Polymer)

“…However, in Gp P, the retraction was greater (525.84) than in Gp C (309.11). The values obtained for the cotton-based retraction cord (Ultrapak) agree with values obtained in previous studies by Al Hamad et al [12], Madaan et al [17], Chaudhari et al [20], and Gajbhiye et al [22]. Our results also are in agreement with the results obtained between the 2 investigated materials after retraction [12,17,20,22,39].…”

“…The values obtained for the cotton-based retraction cord (Ultrapak) agree with values obtained in previous studies by Al Hamad et al [12], Madaan et al [17], Chaudhari et al [20], and Gajbhiye et al [22]. Our results also are in agreement with the results obtained between the 2 investigated materials after retraction [12,17,20,22,39]. While differences of mean values are attributed to different methods and techniques (mid-section versus 4 or 6 surfaces on the tooth) of sulcus width evaluation, the outcome of the result remains same.…”

“…Patients with systemic compromises (eg, diabetes, hypertension, cardiovascular, hyperthyroidism), unerupted teeth, high plaque index scores, high caries index, malocclusion (crowding/diastema/tipped/supraerupted/rotated/tilted/malpositioned teeth), existing prosthesis, thin gingival biotype, bleeding on probing, poor gingival and periodontal health (chronic gingivitis and periodontitis), and being mentally incompetent to provide consent. In addition to the above criteria, pregnant and lactating females and anyone with a history of allergy to th materials (nickel, beryllium) to be used were also excluded from the study [ 21 , 22 ]. These criteria/conditions would influence the outcome of the results.…”

“…In the laboratory, the impressions were poured with die stone and each die was prepared according to the study requirements ( Figure 1F ). Each die was sectioned in the center for measurements as described in previous research [ 22 ]. For all patients in both groups, the restorations were fabricated on programmed semi-adjustable articulators, using an arbitrary face bow to mount the maxillary cast and a centric interocclusal record (Poly Vinyl Siloxane, O-Bite, DMG, USA) [ 23 ].…”

Knowledge Attitude and Practise of Gingival Retraction Among General Dental Practitioners in India

“…Figure 2 depicts the response given by practitioners on whether they practise gingival displacement method for which the respondents of the current study 69.9% answered yes and agreed that it provides visibility to the inish line. A similar study conducted by Vijeta Gajbhiye at 2018, shows that 16% of practitioners preferred retraction for better inish line visibility (Banerjee et al, 2019) depicting that those that follow gingival displacement method ind it effective for better impressions of the patient's dentition. Figure 3 Depicts that 49.5% do not prefer gingival displacement as they think it might require skill.…”