AIM

We compared the clinical efficacy of three gingival displacement systems to accurately record intra-crevicular margins of tooth preparation.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

One mechanical (magic foam cord) and two chemico-mechanical (expasyl paste and retraction cord impregnated with 15% aluminum chloride) gingival displacement systems were used. This study was conducted on the maxillary central incisors of 20 patients (20-60 years old) requiring full coverage restoration. All the three gingival displacement systems were tested in three sessions at an interval of 14 days in same order. The casts were sectioned and viewed under an optical microscope, followed by quantitative measurements of the width of the pre and postretracted sulci.

RESULTS

All the three displacement systems produced highly significant horizontal gingival displacement. Retraction cord soaked in 15% aluminum chloride produced maximum displacement (0.74 mm), followed by expasyl paste (0.48 mm) whereas magic foam cord produced the least displacement (0.41 mm).

CONCLUSIONS

Gingival displacement shown by each displacement system was found to be more than the accepted value necessary for elastomeric impression accuracy (0.2 mm) to record intra-crevicular margins of tooth preparation.