Gingival retraction: thickness measurement and comparison of different cords

Cinthya Massari Greco,Taciana Marco Ferraz Caneppele,Carlos Martins Agra,Taciana Emília De Almeida Anfe

doi:10.14295/bds.2015.v18i2.1060

Abstract

Objective: To measure the thickness of five different brands of gingival retraction cords and verify whether there would be a relationship among the sizes and their numbers and a coherent increasing from the thinnest to the largest thickness. Material and Methods: the following cords were evaluated: Gengiret(G), Retraflex(RF), Retractor(RT), Ultrapack(UP), and Pro Retract(PR). Pieces of the cords were placed beside a metallic ruler and photographed standardly regarding to the distance and light. The measurements of the thickness were performed through imaging software (Adobe Photoshop CS6 - Adobe Systems, San Jose, CA, USA). The obtained data were submitted to statistical analysis (one-way ANOVA and post hoc Sheffé test (p = 0.05)). Results: The number and the thickness of the cords mismatched for most of the brands evaluated. Two brands (UP and PR) showed a thickness increasing that mismatched the size increasing between the thinnest and largest cord. Conclusion: The number assigned to the cords by the manufactures did not correspond to a standard thickness, so that the dentist must observe the risk of using cords from different brands during gingival retraction procedures during techniques requiring more than one retraction cord.

Highlights

T o obtain access to tooth preparation margins placed close to the gingiva or subgingivally, gingival retraction is required
This study aimed to provide guidelines for adequate thickness selection in function of the gingival sulcus dimensions
The horizontal lines represent the cords without significant thickness difference

Summary

Introduction

T o obtain access to tooth preparation margins placed close to the gingiva or subgingivally, gingival retraction is required. This procedure makes viable either the quality of the impression of indirect restorations or the execution of direct restorations because gingival retraction provides the control of the gingival sulcus fluids. While the surgical techniques are the most aggressive, the cordless retraction techniques caused little trauma to gingival tissue than the technique employing the retraction cord [6,7]

Methods

Results

Discussion

Conclusion