Beier US, Grunert I, Kulmer S, Dumfahrt H. Quality of impressions using hydrophilic polyvinyl siloxane in a clinical study of 249 patients. Int J Prosthodont. 2007; 20:270-274
Laufer BZ, Baharav H, Ganor Y, Cardash HS. The effect of marginal thickness on the distortion of different impression materials. J Prosthet Dent. 1996; 76:466-471 https://doi.org/10.1016/s0022-3913(96)90002-5
Al Hamad KQ, Azar WZ, Alwaeli HA, Said KN. A clinical study on the effects of cordless and conventional retraction techniques on the gingival and periodontal health. J Clin Periodontol. 2008; 35:1053-1058 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-051X.2008.01335.x
Baba NZ, Goodacre CJ, Jekki R, Won J. Gingival displacement for impression making in fixed prosthodontics: contemporary principles, materials, and techniques. Dent Clin North Am. 2014; 58:45-68 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cden.2013.09.002
Baharav H, Kupershmidt I, Laufer BZ, Cardash HS. The effect of sulcular width on the linear accuracy of impression materials in the presence of an undercut. Int J Prosthodont. 2004; 17:585-589
Fischer DE. Tissue management: a new solution to an old problem. Gen Dent. 1987; 35:178-182
Feng J, Aboyoussef H, Weiner S The effect of gingival retraction procedures on periodontal indices and crevicular fluid cytokine levels: a pilot study. J Prosthodont. 2006; 15:108-112 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1532-849X.2006.00083.x
Albaker AM. Gingival retraction – techniques and materials: a review. Pak Oral Dent J. 2010; 30:545-551
Jepsen S, Caton JG, Albandar JM Periodontal manifestations of systemic diseases and developmental and acquired conditions: Consensus report of workgroup 3 of the 2017 World Workshop on the Classification of Periodontal and Peri-Implant Diseases and Conditions. J Periodontol. 2018; 89:S237-S248 https://doi.org/10.1002/JPER.17-0733
Nevins M, Skurow HM. The intracrevicular restorative margin, the biologic width, and the maintenance of the gingival margin. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent. 1984; 4:30-49
Ochsenbein C, Ross S. A reevaluation of osseous surgery. Dent Clin North Am. 1969; 13:87-102
Greenberg J, Laster L, Listgarten MA. Transgingival probing as a potential estimator of alveolar bone level. J Periodontol. 1976; 47:514-517 https://doi.org/10.1902/jop.1976.47.9.514
De Rouck T, Eghbali R, Collys K The gingival biotype revisited: transparency of the periodontal probe through the gingival margin as a method to discriminate thin from thick gingiva. J Clin Periodontol. 2009; 36:428-433 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-051X.2009.01398.x
Müller HP, Barrieshi-Nusair KM, Könönen E. Repeatability of ultrasonic determination of gingival thickness. Clin Oral Investig. 2007; 11:439-442 https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-007-0125-0
Barriviera M, Duarte WR, Januário AL A new method to assess and measure palatal masticatory mucosa by cone-beam computerized tomography. J Clin Periodontol. 2009; 36:564-568 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-051X.2009.01422.x
Abraham S, Deepak KT, Ambili R Gingival biotype and its clinical significance – a review. Saudi J Dent Research. 2014; 5:3-7
Conrad HJ, Holtan JR. Internalized discoloration of dentin under porcelain crowns: a clinical report. J Prosthet Dent. 2009; 101:153-157 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-3913(09)00025-0
O'Keefe KL, Pinzon LM, Rivera B, Powers JM. Bond strength of composite to astringent-contaminated dentin using self-etching adhesives. Am J Dent. 2005; 18:168-172
O'Mahony A, Spencer P, Williams K, Corcoran J. Effect of 3 medicaments on the dimensional accuracy and surface detail reproduction of polyvinyl siloxane impressions. Quintessence Int. 2000; 31:201-206
Donovan TE, Gandara BK, Nemetz H. Review and survey of medicaments used with gingival retraction cords. J Prosthet Dent. 1985; 53:525-531 https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-3913(85)90640-7
Cloyd S, Puri S. Using the double-cord packing technique of tissue retraction for making crown impressions. Dent Today. 1999; 18:54-59
Ferrari M, Cagidiaco MC, Ercoli C. Tissue management with a new gingival retraction material: a preliminary clinical report. J Prosthet Dent. 1996; 75:242-247 https://doi.org/10.1016/s0022-3913(96)90479-5
Phatale S, Marawar PP, Byakod G Effect of retraction materials on gingival health: a histopathological study. J Indian Soc Periodontol. 2010; 14:35-39 https://doi.org/10.4103/0972-124X.65436
Bennani V, Inger M, Aarts JM. Comparison of pressure generated by cordless gingival displacement materials. J Prosthet Dent. 2014; 112:163-167 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2013.09.035
Rajambigai MA, Raja SR, Soundar SI, Kandasamy M. Quick, painless, and atraumatic gingival retraction: an overview of advanced materials. J Pharm Bioallied Sci. 2016; 8:S5-S7 https://doi.org/10.4103/0975-7406.191968
Dederichs M, Fahmy MD, Kuepper H, Guentsch A. Comparison of gingival retraction materials using a new gingival sulcus model. J Prosthodont. 2019; 28:784-789 https://doi.org/10.1111/jopr.13093
Gupta A, Prithviraj DR, Gupta D, Shruti DP. Clinical evaluation of three new gingival retraction systems: a research report. J Indian Prosthodont Soc. 2013; 13:36-42 https://doi.org/10.1007/s13191-012-0140-y
Mehta S, Virani H, Memon S, Nirmal N. A comparative evaluation of efficacy of gingival retraction using polyvinyl siloxane foam retraction system, vinyl polysiloxane paste retraction system, and copper wire reinforced retraction cord in endodontically treated teeth: an in vivo study. Contemp Clin Dent. 2019; 10:428-432 https://doi.org/10.4103/ccd.ccd_708_18
Qureshi SM, Anasane NS, Kakade D. Comparative evaluation of the amount of gingival displacement using three recent gingival retraction systems - in vivo study. Contemp Clin Dent. 2020; 11:28-33 https://doi.org/10.4103/ccd.ccd_311_19
Huang C, Somar M, Li K, Mohadeb JVN. Efficiency of cordless versus cord techniques of gingival retraction: a systematic review. J Prosthodont. 2017; 26:177-185 https://doi.org/10.1111/jopr.12352
Wang Y, Fan F, Li X Influence of gingival retraction paste versus cord on periodontal health: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Quintessence Int. 2019; 50:234-244 https://doi.org/10.3290/j.qi.a41976
Chandra S, Singh A, Gupta KK Effect of gingival displacement cord and cordless systems on the closure, displacement, and inflammation of the gingival crevice. J Prosthet Dent. 2016; 115:177-182 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2015.06.023
Bennani V, Schwass D, Chandler N. Gingival retraction techniques for implants versus teeth: current status. J Am Dent Assoc. 2008; 139:1354-1363 https://doi.org/10.14219/jada.archive.2008.0047
Sattar MM, Patel M, Alani A. Clinical applications of polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) tape in restorative dentistry. Br Dent J. 2017; 222:151-158 https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.bdj.2017.110
Browet S, Gerdolle D. Precision and security in restorative dentistry: the synergy of isolation and magnification. Int J Esthet Dent. 2017; 12:172-185
Deogade SC, Mantri SS, Dube G A new trend in recording subgingival tissue around an implant while making a direct abutment impression. Case Rep Dent. 2014; 2014 https://doi.org/10.1155/2014/847408
Safari S S, Ma VS, Mi VS Gingival retraction methods for fabrication of fixed partial denture: literature review. J Dent Biomater. 2016; 3:205-213
Hess TA. A technique to eliminate subgingival cement adhesion to implant abutments by using polytetrafluoroethylene tape. J Prosthet Dent. 2014; 112:365-368 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2013.06.026
Gingival retraction is commonly employed in dentistry. There are several methods that may be used, which fall into mechanical, chemo-mechanical and surgical techniques. The application of these methods depends on the clinical activity the clinician is performing, and there are advantages and disadvantages to each method. This review reflects on the current literature available on gingival retraction methods to provide clinicians with guidance on which methods to consider when undertaking the three most common clinical scenarios: master impression taking; cementation of indirect restorations whether tooth or implant retained; and for direct adhesive dentistry.
CPD/Clinical Relevance: Selecting an appropriate gingival retraction method, for example for master impression taking, cementation of restorations and in adhesive dentistry is of value.
Article
Gingival retraction is defined as a procedure resulting in deflection of the gingival tissues away from the tooth surface. The three most common clinical scenarios where gingival retraction may be required include master impression taking, cementation of indirect restorations and during direct adhesive dentistry.
The need for intrasulcular or subgingival preparation margins may be indicated within a variety of clinical scenarios, including: aesthetic demands; the need to increase retention form; the desire to place margins beyond existing restorations; the presence of cervical abrasion or subgingival caries; and/or to manage root sensitivity using bonding agents.1,2 The presence of such finish lines may require a higher level of operator skill and knowledge in order to capture a sufficient impression, or risk impacting the final restoration longevity.3,4,5,6,7 Aside from patient symptoms, a poorly fitting restoration can result in caries, pocket formation, loss of periodontal attachment, and debonding/decementation of the restoration. The purposes of gingival retraction in these situations include displacing the sulcular width to at least 0.2 mm to prevent the impression material tearing or distorting upon removal, capturing unprepared tooth surface apical to the finish line and accurately recording the finish line itself.8,9
Register now to continue reading
Thank you for visiting Dental Update and reading some of our resources. To read more, please register today. You’ll enjoy the following great benefits:
