Rajbanshi Mahesh K, Kinra Manish S, Sharanesha Rajashekhara B, Virupakshappa Deepti, Khojah Abdullah B, Almakenzi Abdulaziz A, Almakenzi Shahad A
Consultant Prosthodontist, Chitwan Medical College, Bharatpur, Chitwan, Nepal.
Department of Prosthodontics and Maxillofacial, UCDS Bhairahawa, Nepal.
J Pharm Bioallied Sci. 2025 May;17(Suppl 1):S266-S268. doi: 10.4103/jpbs.jpbs_7_25. Epub 2025 Mar 6.
Gingival displacement is a crucial step for achieving accurate marginal adaptation in fixed partial denture prostheses. Effective gingival retraction ensures proper impression taking, particularly around the finish line. While retraction cords and retraction pastes are common methods for achieving this displacement, limited studies have directly compared their effectiveness. This study aims to evaluate and compare the efficacy of retraction cord and retraction paste in achieving lateral gingival displacement in patients requiring fixed partial denture prostheses.
A total of 40 patients were equally divided into two groups: Group I (retraction cord) and Group II (retraction paste). Gingival displacement was measured before and after the retraction procedure using an optical stereomicroscope with 20x magnification on diecasts. The pre and postdisplacement values were analyzed using paired -tests to determine the significance of the displacement within each group. The lateral displacement between the two groups was compared using an independent -test.
Both retraction methods demonstrated significant differences in gingival displacement before and after retraction ( < 0.001) as per the paired -test. Group I (retraction cord) showed a greater lateral displacement (0.213 ± 0.05) compared with Group II (retraction paste, 0.129 ± 0.04), as determined by the independent -test. Both methods achieved sufficient displacement for fixed partial denture impressions.
While both retraction cord and retraction paste effectively achieve gingival displacement, retraction cord results in more substantial displacement. This finding suggests that retraction cord may be the preferred method when greater gingival displacement is required for optimal fixed prosthesis fabrication. However, retraction paste remains a viable option for achieving adequate displacement in most cases.
牙龈移位是在固定局部义齿修复中实现精确边缘适配的关键步骤。有效的牙龈退缩可确保获得合适的印模,尤其是在龈缘处。虽然退缩线和退缩糊剂是实现这种移位的常用方法,但直接比较它们有效性的研究有限。本研究旨在评估和比较退缩线与退缩糊剂在需要固定局部义齿修复的患者中实现牙龈侧向移位的效果。
总共40例患者被平均分为两组:第一组(退缩线组)和第二组(退缩糊剂组)。在退缩操作前后,使用20倍放大的光学体视显微镜在铸型上测量牙龈移位情况。使用配对t检验分析移位前后的值,以确定每组内移位的显著性。使用独立t检验比较两组之间的侧向移位。
根据配对t检验,两种退缩方法在退缩前后的牙龈移位方面均显示出显著差异(P<0.001)。通过独立t检验确定,第一组(退缩线组)的侧向移位更大(0.213±0.05),而第二组(退缩糊剂组为0.129±0.04)。两种方法均实现了固定局部义齿印模所需的足够移位。
虽然退缩线和退缩糊剂都能有效实现牙龈移位,但退缩线导致的移位更大。这一发现表明,当为了最佳固定修复体制作需要更大的牙龈移位时,退缩线可能是首选方法。然而,在大多数情况下,退缩糊剂仍是实现足够移位的可行选择。