Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2019 Jul-Sep;10(3):428-432.
doi: 10.4103/ccd.ccd_708_18.

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

Sonal Mehta  1 , Hemali Virani  2 , Sarfaraz Memon  1 , Narendra Nirmal  1
Affiliations

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

Sonal Mehta et al. Contemp Clin Dent. 2019 Jul-Sep.

Abstract

Purpose of the study: The purpose of the study is to evaluate the efficacy of three gingival retraction systems such as polyvinyl siloxane foam retraction system (magic foam cord; Coltene/WhaledentInc), polysiloxane paste retraction system (GingiTrac; Centrix), and aluminum chloride impregnated twisted retraction cord (Stay-Put; Roeko) in endodontically treated teeth.

Materials and methods: Patients who were endodontically treated for molars and requiring crown for the same, were selected for the present study with sample size of 45. The 45 participants were divided into three groups. Group 1 was treated with Stay-Put, Group 2 with Magic Foam, and Group 3 with GingiTrac. About 90 elastomeric impressions of the participants were taken-45 impressions before retraction and 45 impressions after retraction. The sulcus width was measured on the die obtained from the elastomeric impressions by placing the dies under OVI-200 optical microscope in combination with X soft imaging system software attached to a computer.

Results: The study indicated 0.465627 mm ± 0.063066 mm of gingival retraction for aluminum chloride impregnated retraction cord, 0.210993 mm ± 0.067358 mm of gingival retraction for GingiTrac paste, and 0.294147 mm ± 0.056697 mm of gingival retraction for magic foam cord.

Conclusion: The study data indicated that the new retraction systems are not as effective as the standard retraction cord; however, of the two new systems the Magic Foam system did prove to be effective enough for clinical use. The GingiTrac system failed to achieve the minimum gingival retraction required and hence may not be suitable for clinical use.

Keywords: GingiTrac; Stay-Put retraction cord; gingival displacement; magic foam cord; optical microscope.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

There are no conflicts of interest.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Gingival retraction with retraction cord
Figure 2
Figure 2
Gingival retraction with magic foam
Figure 3
Figure 3
Gingival retraction with GingiTrac
Figure 4
Figure 4
Gingival retraction using retraction cord obtained from optical microscope
Figure 5
Figure 5
Gingival retraction using magic foam obtained from optical microscope
Figure 6
Figure 6
Gingival retraction using GingiTrac obtained from optical microscope
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Rosentiel SF, Land MF, Fujimoto J. Contemporary Fixed Prosthodontics. 4th ed. Missouri, United States: Mosby Elsevier; 2007. pp. 431–65.
    1. Ateeq M, Poduval S. Conventional and new techniques in gingival displacement: Review article. J Dent Oral Biosci. 2001;2:33–7.
    1. Benson BW, Bomberg TJ, Hatch RA, Hoffman W., Jr Tissue displacement methods in fixed prosthodontics. J Prosthet Dent. 1986;55:175–81. - PubMed
    1. Sharma N, Makhija P. Recent concepts in gingival retraction. Natl J Dent Sci Res. 2014;2:86–9.
    1. Kamath R, Sarandha DL, Gulab CB. Advances in gingival retraction. Int J Comp Digit Syst. 2011;2:64–7.