Gingival displacement: Survey results of dentists' practice procedures

Ahmed, Sumitha N.; Donovan, Terry

doi:10.1016/j.prosdent.2014.11.015

Cited by 29 publications

(17 citation statements)

References 13 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Retraction cords are the most used materials for gingival retraction . However, retraction pastes are described to be easier to apply, and due to gingival displacement and astringent and hemostatic effects of most retraction pastes it may be more efficient while enhancing patient comfort .…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…20 Retraction cords are the most used materials for gingival retraction. 1,8 However, retraction pastes are described to be easier to apply, and due to gingival displacement and astringent and hemostatic effects of most retraction pastes it may be more efficient while enhancing patient comfort. 1 All investigated retraction pastes and gels of the present study used aluminum chloride for hemostatic and additional astringent effect.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Less space around the margin of the preparation can reduce the marginal accuracy or lead to tearing of the marginal impression material . Several gingival retraction materials and techniques are currently in use to obtain a clean, dry, and fully accessible marginal operating area …”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…4,6 Several gingival retraction materials and techniques are currently in use to obtain a clean, dry, and fully accessible marginal operating area. 7,8 The methods used for gingival retraction can be divided into 3 categories: (1) mechanical, (2) mechanochemical, and (3) surgical. 1 The latter leads to irreversible soft tissue destruction and can lead to an inflammatory reaction within the soft tissues, cementum, or surrounding bone.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Comparison of Gingival Retraction Materials Using a New Gingival Sulcus Model

Dederichs

Fahmy

Kuepper

et al. 2019

Journal of Prosthodontics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose To investigate the pressure generated by different retraction materials using a novel gingival sulcus model. Materials and Methods A gingival sulcus model was made using a polymer frame filled with silicon. A pressure sensor and a sulcus‐fluid simulation were embedded into the silicon chamber to evaluate the pressure generated by different retraction materials. Six sizes of Ultrapak retraction cords (Ultradent, sizes #000 ‐ 3), 4 retraction pastes (Expazen, Expasyl, Acteon, Access Edge, Traxodent) and 2 retraction gels (Sulcus Blue, Racegel) were analyzed. The mean and median pressure, interquartile range, and standard deviation (SD) of n = 10 repeated measurements were calculated. Statistical analysis was conducted by Kruskal‐Wallis test for differences between the main groups of retraction materials, and Mann‐Whitney U‐test was performed to analyze differences between the single retraction materials. Results Pressure (mean ± SD) generated by retraction cords increased with increasing size (48.26 ± 11.29 kPa, size #000 to 149.27 ± 28.75 kPa for #3). There was a significant difference between sizes (p < 0.01), except in #0 versus #1, and #2 versus #3. Retraction pastes generated pressures that ranged from 82.74 ± 29.29 kPa (Traxodent) to 524.35 ± 113.88 kPa (Expasyl). Retraction gels generated pressures from 38.96 ± 14.68 kPa (Racegel) to 95.15 ± 24.18 kPa (Sulcus Blue). Pressure generated by Expasyl was significantly higher than pressure generated by all other tested materials (p < 0.001). Conclusion Pressure generated by retraction pastes and gels depends on the consistency of the retraction material, while pressure generated by retraction cords increased with increasing size of cords. Expasyl was found to generate the highest pressure compared to all other retraction materials.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Comparison of Gingival Retraction Materials Using a New Gingival Sulcus Model

Dederichs

Fahmy

Kuepper

et al. 2019

Journal of Prosthodontics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Cordless and cord techniques can both provide this level of retraction. One recent survey reported that 92% of dentists use retraction cord . Often a chemical agent is added to induce hemostasis, or the gingival tissues might be removed surgically with a rotary instrument, laser, or heated electrode .…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Impression Techniques Used for Single‐Unit Crowns: Findings from the National Dental Practice‐Based Research Network

McCracken

Louis

Litaker

et al. 2017

Journal of Prosthodontics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose To: (1) determine which impression and gingival displacement techniques practitioners use for single-unit crowns on natural teeth; and (2) test whether certain dentist and practice characteristics are significantly associated with the use of these techniques. Materials and Methods Dentists participating in the National Dental Practice-Based Research Network were eligible for this survey study. The study used a questionnaire developed by clinicians, statisticians, laboratory technicians, and survey experts. The questionnaire was pre-tested via cognitive interviewing with a regionally diverse group of practitioners. The survey included questions regarding gingival displacement and impression techniques. Survey responses were compared by dentist and practice characteristics using ANOVA. Results The response rate was 1777 of 2132 eligible dentists (83%). Regarding gingival displacement, most clinicians reported using either a single cord (35%) or dual cord (35%) technique. About 16% of respondents preferred an injectable retraction technique. For making impressions, the most frequently used techniques and materials are: poly(vinyl siloxane), 77%; polyether, 12%; optical/digital, 9%. A dental auxiliary or assistant made the final impression 2% of the time. Regarding dual-arch impression trays, 23% of practitioners report they typically use a metal frame tray, 60% use a plastic frame, and 16% do not use a dual-arch tray. Clinicians using optical impression techniques were more likely to be private practice owners or associates. Conclusions This study documents current techniques for gingival displacement and making impressions for crowns. Certain dentist and practice characteristics are significantly associated with these techniques.

show abstract

Local Techniques and Pharmacologic Agents for Management of Bleeding in Dentistry

Szumita

2018

Hemostasis in Dentistry

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Gingival displacement: Survey results of dentists' practice procedures

Cited by 29 publications

References 13 publications

Comparison of Gingival Retraction Materials Using a New Gingival Sulcus Model

Comparison of Gingival Retraction Materials Using a New Gingival Sulcus Model

Impression Techniques Used for Single‐Unit Crowns: Findings from the National Dental Practice‐Based Research Network

Local Techniques and Pharmacologic Agents for Management of Bleeding in Dentistry

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About