International Journal of Prosthodontics and Restorative Dentistry

Register      Login

VOLUME 11 , ISSUE 4 ( October-December, 2021 ) > List of Articles


Evaluation of Effectiveness and Adverse Effects of Retraction Cord vs Retraction Paste: A Systematic Review

Vincent Bennani, Y-S Chuang, John M Aarts, Paul Brunton

Keywords : Cord, Displacement, Gingival, Paste, Retraction

Citation Information : Bennani V, Chuang Y, Aarts JM, Brunton P. Evaluation of Effectiveness and Adverse Effects of Retraction Cord vs Retraction Paste: A Systematic Review. Int J Prosthodont Restor Dent 2021; 11 (4):183-190.

DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10019-1344

License: CC BY-NC 4.0

Published Online: 04-04-2022

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2021; The Author(s).


Aim and objective: The practitioner's assumptions with regards to the ideal gingival retraction technique are not well supported in the literature and contradictions still exist. Therefore, the objective of this review is to determine the effectiveness and adverse effects, of using a retraction cord compared with a retraction paste. Materials and methods: The “Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols” (PRISMA-P) 2015 guidelines were followed. Studies, published between 2010 and 2020, involving retraction cords and retraction pastes were searched for in multiple databases. Inclusion and exclusion criteria were applied and the studies were evaluated using the GRADE system. The studies were analyzed and the quantity of gingival retraction and periodontal health are reported. Results: Of the selected 10 studies, nine were randomized, and one was quasi-randomized. Five studies compared the horizontal displacement of retraction cords and retraction pastes. Eight studies described the influence of retraction materials on periodontal health. Seven studies recorded Bleeding Index (BI) scores, with five studies finding higher BI value following removal of retraction cords. According to the GRADE scoring system, the quality of research was ranked from +1 to +3 with the majority of the studies being in the +2 range. Conclusion: Astringents used with retraction cords can achieve wider and longer gingival displacement. Retraction pastes can avoid disrupting the junctional epithelium attachment and damaging the supracrestal tissue height, and produce less gingival inflammation due to the lower application forces.

  1. Sikri VK. Color: implications in dentistry. J Conserv Dent 2010;13(4):249. DOI: 10.4103/0972-0707.73381
  2. Laufer BZ, Baharav H, Ganor Y, et al. The effect of marginal thickness on the distortion of different impression materials. J Prosthet Dent 1996;76(5):466–471. DOI: 10.1016/s0022-3913(96)90002-5
  3. Al Hamad KQ, Azar WZ, Alwaeli HA, et al. A clinical study on the effects of cordless and conventional retraction techniques on the gingival and periodontal health. J Clin Periodontol 2008;35(12):1053–1058. DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-051X.2008.01335.x
  4. The glossary of prosthodontic terms. J Prosthet Dent 2005;94(1):10–92. DOI: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2005.03.013
  5. Donovan T, Gandara B, Nemetz H. Review and survey of medicaments used with gingival retraction cords J Prosthet Dent 1985;53(4):525–531. DOI: 10.1016/0022-3913(85)90640-7
  6. Ferrari M, Cagidiaco MC, Ercoli C. Tissue management with a new gingival retraction material: a preliminary clinical report. J Prosthet Dent 1996;75(3):242–247. DOI: 10.1016/s0022-3913(96)90479-5
  7. Bennani V, Schwass D, Chandler N. Gingival retraction techniques for implants versus teeth: current status. J Am Dent Assoc 2008;139(10):1354–1363. DOI: 10.14219/jada.archive.2008.0047
  8. Jokstad A. Clinical trial of gingival retraction cords. J Prosthet Dent 1999;81(3):258–261. DOI: 10.1016/s0022-3913(99)70266-0
  9. La Forgia A. Mechanical-chemical and electrosurgical tissue retraction for fixed prosthesis. J Prosthet Dent 1964;14(6):1107–1114. DOI: 10.1016/0022-3913(64)90180-5
  10. Jain A. Gingival retraction in prosthodontics-a review. J Pharm Res 2017;11:1454–1461.
  11. Blackman NJM, Koval JJ. Interval estimation for Cohen's kappa as a measure of agreement. Stat Med 2000;19(5):723–741. DOI: 10.1002/(SICI)1097-0258(20000315)19:5<723::AID-SIM379>3.0.CO;2-a
  12. Dijkers M. Introducing GRADE: a systematic approach to rating evidence in systematic reviews and to guideline development. KT Update 2013;1(5):1–9.
  13. Beleidy M, Serag Elddien A. Clinical comparative evaluation of different retraction systems in gingival displacement and their influence on periodontal health: a randomized clinical trial. Egypt Dental J 2020;66(3):1667–1678. DOI: 10.21608/edj.2020.26079.1076
  14. Gupta A, Prithviraj DR, Gupta D, et al. Clinical evaluation of three new gingival retraction systems: a research report. J Indian Prosthodont Soc 2013;13(1):36–42. DOI: 10.1007/s13191-012-0140-y
  15. Bennani V, Aarts JM, Brunton P. A randomized controlled clinical trial comparing the use of displacement cords and aluminum chloride paste. J Esthet Restor Dent 2020;32(4):410–415. DOI: 10.1111/jerd.12581
  16. Prasanna GR, Reddy K, Kumar RN, et al. Evaluation of efficacy of different gingival displacement materials on gingival sulcus width. J Contemp Dent Pract 2013;14(2):217. DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10024-1302
  17. Jain AR, Nallaswamy D. Comparison of gingival retraction produced by retraction cord and expasyl retraction systems - an in vivo study. Drug Invent Today 2018;10(1):35–41. Corpus ID: 212535409.
  18. Chandra S, Singh A, Gupta KK, et al. Effect of gingival displacement cord and cordless systems on the closure, displacement, and inflammation of the gingival crevice. J Prosthet Dent 2016;115(2):177–182. DOI: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2015.06.023
  19. Einarsdottir ER, Lang NP, Aspelund T, et al. A multicenter randomized, controlled clinical trial comparing the use of displacement cords, an aluminum chloride paste, and a combination of paste and cords for tissue displacement. J Prosthet Dent 2018;119(1):82–88. DOI: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2017.03.010
  20. Acar O, Erkut S, Ozcelik TB, et al. A clinical comparison of cordless and conventional displacement systems regarding clinical performance and impression quality. J Prosthet Dent 2014;111(5):388–394. DOI: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2013.08.009
  21. Sarmento HR, Leite FR, Dantas RV, et al. A double-blind randomised clinical trial of two techniques for gingival displacement. J Oral Rehabil 2014;41(4):306–313. DOI: 10.1111/joor.12142
  22. Phatale S, Marawar PP, Byakod G, et al. Effect of retraction materials on gingival health: a histopathological study. J Indian Soc Periodontol 2010;14(1):35–39. DOI: 10.4103/0972-124X.65436
  23. Schulz KF, Chalmers I, Grimes DA, et al. Assessing the quality of randomization from reports of controlled trials published in obstetrics and gynecology journals. JAMA 1994;272(2):125–128. PMID: 8015122.
  24. Anupam P, Namratha N, Vibha S, et al. Efficacy of two gingival retraction systems on lateral gingival displacement: a prospective clinical study. J Oral Biol Craniofac Res 2013;3(2):68–72. DOI: 10.1016/j.jobcr.2013.05.006
  25. Laufer BZ, Baharav H, Langer Y, et al. The closure of the gingival crevice following gingival retraction for impression making. J Oral Rehabil 1997;24(9):629–635. DOI: 10.1046/j.1365-2842.1997.00558.x
  26. Livaditis GJ. The matrix impression system for fixed prosthodontics. J Prosthet Dent 1998;79(2):208–216. DOI: 10.1016/s0022-3913(98)70217-3
PDF Share
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.