A Comparative In vivo Study for Evaluation of the Amount of Gingival Displacement

Aim and Objective: This study was done for comparative evaluation of the amount of gingival displacement produced by three different gingival retraction systems (Magic Foam Cord, Racegel & Medicated Retraction Cords) based on gingival displacement, haemorrhage control and ease of placement and finally to suggest the best material for gingival displacement.

Materials and Methods: The study involved 30 edentulous patients of 19-25 year age group with healthy periodontium and aligned natural dentition. The custom tray was made on a model from diagnostic alginate impression. The four-time impression was made for each subject on the custom tray. Each impression was taken after interval of one week. First impression was done without gingival displacement; second after gingival displacement with aluminum chloride; third with ‘Magic Foam Cord’ for tissue displacement; Fourth impression after using ‘Racegel’ for tissue displacement. Maxillary right central incisor was used for retraction. Mesiodistal width of right central incisor was measured with help of vernier caliper and the center point of the tooth was marked on the cast for making cut. Cast was positioned and stabilized on platform of die cutter, and primary cut was made on the marked central point of incisal edge in the buccolingual direction through the entire length of the cast. Evaluation of the amount of displacement: For determining the amount of displacement, samples were studied under a stereomicroscope having magnification of ×20.

Results: The displacement observed was found to be significantly (p=0.0001) higher in Retraction Cord (mean 0.73 mm) than Magic foam cord (mean 0.56 mm) and Racegel (mean 0.37mm). Displacement observed was found to be significantly (p=0.0001) higher in Magic foam cord than Racegel. The percentage of no bleeding was higher in Racegel (96.7%) than Magic foam cord (43.3%) and Retraction cord (10%). Among the three retraction systems compared for ease of placement in the present study, the time taken for Racegel retraction technique (mean time 58.53 seconds) was considerably less as compared to the time required for placement of Magic foam cord (65.33 seconds) and Medicated retraction cord technique (119.33 seconds).

Conclusion: Magic foam cord can be suggested for use in clinical practice as it is more effective among the three retraction systems used in this study, as it has taken less time and easier in placement, attained good amount of displacement and induced minimal bleeding on removal compared to Aluminum chloride soaked retraction cord.