International Journal of Prosthodontics and Restorative Dentistry

Register      Login

VOLUME 13 , ISSUE 3 ( July-September, 2023 ) > List of Articles


Randomized Clinical Trial for Evaluation of Efficacy of a Tissue-displacing Impression System in Comparison with Conventionally Used Gingival Displacement Materials in Young Adult Population

Vijeta Gajbhiye, Rajlakshmi Banerjee, Rahul Tekale, Priti R Jaiswal, Ruchita Kumbhare

Keywords : Gingival displacement, Gingival sulcus, Impression, Impression making, Subgingival finish line

Citation Information : Gajbhiye V, Banerjee R, Tekale R, Jaiswal PR, Kumbhare R. Randomized Clinical Trial for Evaluation of Efficacy of a Tissue-displacing Impression System in Comparison with Conventionally Used Gingival Displacement Materials in Young Adult Population. Int J Prosthodont Restor Dent 2023; 13 (3):163-169.

DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10019-1422

License: CC BY-NC 4.0

Published Online: 29-09-2023

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2023; The Author(s).


Purpose: The purpose of the study was to comparatively evaluate these new gingival displacement materials for their efficacy when compared with the conventional chemomechanical gingival displacement method. Materials and methods: This randomized control trial was carried out on 25 individuals according to the inclusion and exclusion criteria for gingival displacement using a retraction cord impregnated with aluminum chloride, ExpaSyl, and NoCord vinyl polysiloxane (VPS) impression system using Latin block design to evaluate the gingival displacement produced by three different tissue displacing materials on a right central incisor. Impressions were poured into the die stone. Casts were retrieved, and sections were made using a die cutter. Each slice thus obtained was evaluated under an optical microscope and transferred to the image analyzer to measure the amount of gingival retraction. The recorded values were statistically evaluated using the one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) test, followed by the Tukey post hoc test for multiple comparisons. Results: The amount of mean gingival displacement produced by retraction cord impregnated with astringent solution was 1.42 ± 0.32 µm, by ExpaSyl retraction paste was 1.40 ± 0.11 µm, and that by NoCord VPS impression was 0.62 ± 0.12 µm when subjected to one-way ANOVA which showed highly statistically significant difference (p = 0.001 )among all the three groups with respect to gingival displacement. NoCord Impression system produced optimum tissue displacement as compared to the other two techniques. Conclusion: The retraction cord produced the maximum tissue displacement, followed by ExpaSyl, and the least displacement was caused by NoCord, although all displacement methods compared produced the optimum displacement required for impression making.

  1. Padbury A Jr, Eber R, Wang HL. Interactions between the gingiva and the margin of restorations. J Clin Periodontol 2003;30(5):379–385. DOI: 10.1034/j.1600-051x.2003.01277.x
  2. Prasad DK, Hegde C, Agrawal G, et al. Gingival displacement in prosthodontics: a critical review of existing methods. J Interdiscip Dent 2011;1(2):80. DOI: 10.4103/2229-5194.85023
  3. The glossary of prosthodontic terms. J Prosthet Dent 2005;94(1):10–92. DOI: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2005.03.013
  4. Baharav H, Kupershmidt I, Laufer BZ, et al. The effect of sulcular width on the linear accuracy of impression materials in the presence of an undercut. Int J Prosthodont 2004;17(5):585−589. PMID: 15543916.
  5. Reddy SVG, Bharathi M, Bandela V, et al. Gingival displacement methods used by dental professionals: a survey. J Orofac Sci 2016;8(2):120–122. DOI: 10.4103/0975-8844.195909
  6. Ashri NY, AlRifaiy MQ, El-Metwally A. The effect of gingival retraction cord on periodontal health compared to other gingival retraction procedures: a systematic review. Periodont Prosthodont 2016;2:1–10. DOI: 10.21767/2471-3082.100024
  7. Feng J, Aboyoussef H, Weiner S, et al. The effect of gingival retraction procedures on periodontal indices and crevicular fluid cytokine levels: a pilot study. J Prosthodont 2006:15(12);108–112. DOI: 10.1111/j.1532-849X.2006.00083.x
  8. Tyas M. Cotton pellets and gingival retraction cords. Clinical notes No. 2. Aust Dent J 1984;29(4):279. PMID: 6395843.
  9. Lesage P. Expasyl: protocol for use with fixed prosthodontics. Clinic 2002:23;97–103.
  10. Gajbhiye V, Banerjee R, Jaiswal P, et al. Comparative evaluation of three gingival displacement materials for efficacy in tissue management and dimensional accuracy. J Indian Prosthodont Soc 2019;19(2):173–179. DOI: 10.4103/jips.jips_285_18
  11. Smelltzer M. An alternative way to use gingival retraction paste. J Am Dent Assoc 2003:134(11);1485. DOI: 10.14219/jada.archive.2003.0078
  12. Moher D, Hopewell S, Schulz KF, et al. CONSORT 2010 explanation and elaboration: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials. J ClinEpidemiol 2010;63(8):1–37. DOI: 10.1136/bmj.c869
  13. Raghav D, Singh S, Kola MZ, et al. A comparative clinical and quantitative evaluation of the efficacy of conventional and recent gingival retraction systems: an in vitro study. Eur J Prosthodont 2014;2(3):76. DOI: 10.4103/2347-4610.140514
  14. Chaudhari J, Prajapati P, Patel J, et al. Comparative evaluation of the amount of gingival displacement produced by three different gingival retraction systems: an in vivo study. Contemp Clin Dent 2015;6(2):189–195. DOI: 10.4103/0976-237X.156043
  15. Rayyan MM, Hussien ANM, Sayed NM, et al. Comparison of four cordless gingival displacement systems: a clinical study. J Prosthet Dent 2019;121(2):265–270. DOI: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2018.05.010
  16. Löe H. The gingival index, the plaque index and the retention index systems. J Periodontol 1967;38(6):610–616. DOI: 10.1902/jop.1967.38.6.610
  17. Shillingburg HT, Hobo S, Whitsett LD. Fundamentals of Fixed Prosthodontics. Quintessence; 1997.
  18. Seibert JL, Lindhe J. Textbook of Clinical Periodontology. 2nd edition. Munksgaard; 1989.
  19. Weir DJ, Williams BH. Clinical effectiveness of mechanical–chemical tissue displacement methods. J Prosthet Dent 1984;51(3):326–329. DOI: 10.1016/0022-3913(84)90214-2
  20. Runyan DA, Reddy TG Jr, Shimoda LM. Fluid absorbency of retraction cords after soaking in aluminum chloride solution. J Prosthet Dent 1988;60(6):676–678. DOI: 10.1016/0022-3913(88)90396-4
  21. de Camargo LM, Chee WW, Donovan TE. Inhibition of polymerization of polyvinyl siloxanes by medicaments used on gingival retraction cords. J Prosthet Dent 1993;70(2):114–117. DOI: 10.1016/0022-3913(93)90003-7
  22. O’Mahony A, Spencer P, Williams K, et al. Effect of 3 medicaments on the dimensional accuracy and surface detail reproduction of polyvinyl siloxane impressions. Quintessence Int 2000;31(3):201–206. PMID: 11203927.
  23. Shannon A. Expanded clinical uses of a novel tissue-retraction material. Compend Contin Educ Dent 2002;23(1 suppl):3–6; quiz 18. PMID: 119132723.
  24. Poss S. An innovative tissue-retraction material. Compend Contin Educ Dent 2002;23(1 suppl):13–17; quiz 18-9. PMID: 11913271.
  25. 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
  26. Akca EA, Yildirim E, Dalkiz M, et al. Effects of different retraction medicaments on gingival tissue. Quintessence Int 2006;37(1):53–59.
  27. Yang JC, Tsai CM, Chen MS, et al. Clinical study of a newly developed injection-type gingival retraction material. Clin Dent J 2005;24(3):147–151. DOI: 10.30086/JDS.200509.0004
  28. Blanchard JP. A new method of gingival retraction for impression taking in fixed prosthesis. Les Cahiers de Prothese 2000;109:7–14.DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD009797
  29. 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
  30. Kesari ZI, Karani JT, Mistry SS, et al. A comparative evaluation of amount of gingival displacement produced by four different gingival displacement agents - an in vivo study. J Indian Prosthodont Soc 2019;19(4):313–323. DOI: 10.4103/jips.jips_288_19
  31. Martins FV, Santana RB, Fonseca EM. Efficacy of conventional cord versus cordless techniques for gingival displacement: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Prosthet Dent 2021;125(1):46–55. DOI: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2019.09.009
  32. Higgins J, Green S. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. 2019.
  33. Thimmappa M, Bhatia M, Somani P, et al. Comparative evaluation of three noninvasive gingival displacement systems: an in vivo study. J Indian Prosthodont Soc 2018;18(2):122–130. DOI: 10.4103/jips.jips_225_17
  34. Kuhn K, Zügel D, Korbay VA, et al. Gingival displacement in the vertical and horizontal dimension under the condition of mild gingivitis—a randomized clinical study. J Clin Med 2022;11(2):437. DOI: 10.3390/jcm11020437
  35. Indriyani A, Masulili C, Odang RWL. Effect of gingival retraction method to lateral gingival displacement width. Pesqui Bras Odontopediatria Clín Integr 2019;19(1):1–7. DOI: 10.4034/PBOCI.2019.191.12
  36. Nasim H, Lone MA, Kumar B, et al. Evaluation of gingival displacement, bleeding and ease of application for polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) and conventional retraction cord - a clinical trial. Eur Rev Med Pharmacol Sci 2023;27:2222–2231. DOI: 10.26355/eurrev_202303_31756
  37. Kuhn K, Rudolph H, Zügel D, et al. Influence of the gingival condition on the performance of different gingival displacement methods-a randomized clinical study. J Clin Med 2021;10(13):2747. DOI: 10.3390/jcm10132747
  38. 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
PDF Share
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.