Comparative evaluation of amount

of gingival displacement produced by

the two different gingival retraction
systems – In vivo study
 INTRODUCTION
• The success of fixed prosthodontic
restorations largely dependent upon the long-
term health and stability of the surrounding
periodontal structures.
• The gingival displacement procedure allows
the impression material to flow apical to the
sub gingival finish line thereby registering it.
• Several clinical methods are available for
adequate gingival displacement -
• Commonly opted method to obtain gingival
retraction is by the means of cord packed within
the gingival sulcus and recent one - cordless
retraction.
 AIM AND OBJECTIVE
• The aim of this study is to compare and
evaluate the amount of gingival displacement
produced by different gingival retraction
systems.
 REVIEW OF LITERATURE
• Dr. Ashish Choudhary et al, conducted a study to
evaluate the amount of displacement of free gingiva
with the use of a new retraction paste and retraction
cord system and concluded that cordless method was
found to be more effective in gingival retraction.
• Jignesh Chaudhari et al, conducted a study to
evaluate efficacy of different retraction systems and
concluded that aluminum chloride showed the
maximum displacement.
• Soni Kumar et al, conducted a study to analyze the
clinical effectiveness of three new gingival retraction
systems and concluded that aluminium chloride
containing paste was found effective in almost all the
variables considered.
 MATERIALS AND METHODS

40 dentulous
patients

WITH CORD CORDLESS

Aluminium Ferric chloride Retraction Traxodent (n-

chloride (n-10) (n-10) capsule (n-10) 10)
• Before and after impressions were made and
casts were poured.
• Casts were sectioned and each slice was
evaluated for the amount of gingival
displacement under Stereomicroscope.
RESULTS
 GROUPS N MEAN STANDARD STANDARD
DEVIATION ERROR
FERRIC 10 51780.2 9694.97 3065.820
CHLORIDE
ALUMINIUM 10 85360.2 6879.01 2175.335
CHLORIDE

SOURCE DEGREES OF SUM OF MEAN F-STAT P-VALUE

FREEDOM SQUARES SQUARE

SS MS
BETWEEN 1 5638082000 5638082000 79.79 0
GROUPS

WITHIN 18 1271820631.19 70656701.72

GROUPS
TOTAL: 19 6909902631.01

COMPARISON BETWEEN FERRIC CHLORIDE AND

ALUMINIUM CHLORIDE
 control
ferric chloride
aluminium chloride

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
 GROUPS N MEAN STANDARD STANDARD
DEVIATION ERROR
RETRACTION 10 133528.6 5150.37 1628.69
CAPSULE
TRAXODENT 10 125946 10101.61 3194.41

SOURCE DEGREES OF SUM OF MEAN F-STAT P-VALUE

FREEDOM SQUARES SQUARE

SS MS
BETWEEN 1 287479113.8 287479113.8 4.472 0.0487
GROUPS

WITHIN 18 1157120705.29 64284483.62

GROUPS
TOTAL: 19 1444599819.09

COMPARISON BETWEEN THE RETRACTION CAPSULE

AND TRAXODENT
 control
retraction capsule
traxodent

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
 DISCUSSION
• The marginal integrity is one of the most basic
criteria of the principles of tooth preparation.
• The placement of margin or finish line in relation to
the gingival margin has direct bearing on fabrication
of restoration and health of the periodontal tissue of
the prepared abutment teeth.
• For esthetics / caries existing restoration and need
for additional retention – margins sub gingivally.
• This requires some form of gingival displacement -
for making the impression.
• This study was focused on evaluation and
comparison of the amount of gingival displacement
with the use of different retraction systems.
• The highest gingival displacement was found among
retraction capsule (cordless) and the least among
ferric chloride (with cord).
 LIMITATIONS
• Different concentrations of aluminium
chloride.
 CONCLUSION
• Among the different displacement agents tested,
cordless technique showed the maximum
displacement.
• Ferric chloride showed the least displacement.
• Apart from being time-consuming, the use of
traditional retraction cord may cause discomfort
and potential damage to periodontium if used
carelessly.
 REFERENCE
• A Comparative Evaluation Of Gingival Displacement With
Or Without Retraction Paste –A Clinical Report-Dr. Ashish
Choudhary-European Journal of Molecular & Clinical
Medicine ISSN 2515-8260 Volume 07, Issue 11, 2020.
• Comparative evaluation of the amount of gingival
displacement produced by three different gingival
retraction systems: An in vivostudy-Contemporary
Clinical Dentistry | Apr-Jun 2015 | Vol 6 | Issue.
• Gingival Retraction Techniques: A Review-Samira Adnan
Muhammad Atif S Agwan-DentalUpdate -2018