Contemporary Clinical Dentistry
  Home | About us | Editorial board | Search
Ahead of print | Current Issue | Archives | Advertise
Instructions | Online submission| Contact us | Subscribe |


Login  | Users Online: 400  Print this pageEmail this pageSmall font sizeDefault font sizeIncrease font size 

Year : 2015  |  Volume : 6  |  Issue : 2  |  Page : 189-195

Comparative evaluation of the amount of gingival displacement produced by three different gingival retraction systems: An in vivostudy

1 Department of Prosthodontics, Crown and Bridge, Karnavati School of Dentistry, Uvarsad, Gandhinagar, India
2 Department of Prosthodontics, Crown and Bridge, K. M. Shah Dental College and Hospital, Sumandeep Vidyapeeth University, Piparia, Vadodara, Gujarat, India

Correspondence Address:
Paranjay Prajapati
Department of Prosthodontics, Crown and Bridge, K. M. Shah Dental College and Hospital, Sumandeep Vidyapeeth University, Piparia, Vadodara, Gujarat
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None

DOI: 10.4103/0976-237X.156043

Rights and Permissions

Statement of Problem: Tetrahydrozoline has been introduced as new gingival retraction agent but its clinical efficacy with widely used conventional retraction agents has not been tested. Purpose: The study was designed to clinically evaluate efficacy of newer retraction agent tetrahydrozoline with two widely used retraction systems i.e., Expasyl retraction system and medicated retraction cords on basis of amount of gingival retraction. Materials and Methods: 30 subjects were selected according to inclusion and exclusion criteria. Maxillary Impressions were made with irreversible hydrocolloid for all subjects. Tray material was used for making the special tray. Latin Block Design was Used in the Study to avoid tissue fatigue. Retraction was done with aluminium chloride; Tetrahydrozoline and Expasyl according to Latin block design. Impressions were poured with die stone. Casts were retrieved and sections were made with die cutter. 3 mm thin slices were obtained. Each slice was used to measure the amount of retraction under stereomicroscope under 20x and images were transferred to image analyser. Results: The amount of gingival retraction obtained by using aluminium chloride as gingival retraction agent was maximum (148238.33 μm 2 ) compared to tetrahydrozoline (140737.87 μm 2 ) and Expasyl (67784.90 μm 2 ).

Print this article     Email this article
 Next article
 Previous article
 Table of Contents

 Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
 Citation Manager
 Access Statistics
 Reader Comments
 Email Alert *
 Add to My List *
 * Requires registration (Free)

 Article Access Statistics
    PDF Downloaded545    
    Comments [Add]    
    Cited by others 2    

Recommend this journal