Gingival Displacement Research Articles

Evaluation of Lateral and Vertical Gingival Displacement Produced by Three Different Gingival Retraction Systems using Impression Scanning: An in-Vivo Original Study

Isolation of the prepared margin along with control of gingival fluid and haemorrhage is an important factor to register finish lines, which can be achieved by displacing the gingiva away from the abutment which helps in better visualization of the prepared tooth surface. This study utilized digital scanning of rubber based impression material to compare the amount of gingival displacement produced by 3M ESPE capsule, plain retraction cord and impregnated retraction cord.  Aims: The aim of the study was to compare lateral and vertical gingival displacement produced by the three materials  Settings and Design: Case-Control  Methods and Material: Twenty participants requiring a full coverage restoration were selected. Gingiva around each tooth requiring a crown was retracted using the three materials and a rubber based impression was made. The impression was scanned using EXOCAD software to obtain readings for gingival displacement for control group, non- impregnated cord, impregnated cord and retraction paste.  Statistical analysis used: The scores were analysed in SPSS software using one way ANNOVA and post hoc analysis  Results: Significant difference was seen among all trial groups when compared to control. Highest mean vertical displacement was seen in clinical trial II (non- impregnated cord) followed by trial III ( retraction paste).  Conclusions: Impregnated cord and retraction paste both produced adequate retraction for the margings to be registered. Use of paste was less time consuming and less traumatic for the patient and therefore can be substituted for retraction cords.

Clinical and immunological aspects of gingival retraction systems in fixed dental prostheses: A systematic review

Objective To describe the existing knowledge on the efficacy of the different gingival retraction systems (GRSs) in gingival displacement, to know their effects on biological functions of human gingival fibroblasts (HGFs), and on the expression of inflammatory mediators (TNF-α and MCP-1) in gingival crevicular fluid (GCF), and saliva. Methods The protocol used for this systematic review was registered in INPLASY: 202410005. A digital search was performed in the databases PubMed/MEDLINE, Scopus, Science Direct, Web of Science, and Google Scholar of the literature published in the English language in the last 17 years (from December 10th, 2006, to May 15th, 2023), and included retrospective randomized clinical studies, prospective, and in vitro experimental studies. In addition, PRISMA criteria were followed. The methodological validity of the selected articles was assessed using Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) critical appraisal tool, and the modified Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials checklist (CONSORT). Results 27 articles published between 2006 and 2023 were evaluated. Six hundred 32 subjects, aged between 18 and 65, participated in the clinical studies. 93.7% of the studies assessed periodontally healthy patients, and only 6.3% evaluated patients with mild gingivitis. Also, 882 teeth were samples, of which the majority were posterior teeth (54%). The most commonly used GRSs was aluminum chloride gingival retraction paste (74%). The GCF samples were taken in 67% of the studies, and ELISA was used in all studies (100%) to determine inflammatory mediators. The most frequently analyzed marker was TNF-α (67%). Conclusion The system Merocel Strips (Mystic, conn, USA) achieved the highest level of gingival displacement (1.66 ± 3.7 mm). In addition, the braided cords produced the lowest TNF-α levels (0.43 ± 0.08pg/mL). Astringent systems such as ferric sulfate had higher toxicity in HGFs.

Comparative Evaluation of Gingival Displacement and Patient Outcomes with Different Gingival Retraction Techniques: A Cross-over Clinical Trial

Comparative Evaluation of Gingival Displacement and Patient Outcomes with Different Gingival Retraction Techniques: A Cross-over Clinical Trial

Effectiveness of cordless techniques in gingival displa-cement. A systematic review and meta-analysis

Objective: To compare the effectiveness of the conventional technique and cordless technique in gingival displacement. Materials and Methods: A bibliographic search was carried out until August 2023, in the biomedical databases: Pubmed/Medline, Cochrane Library, Scielo, Scopus and Google Scholar. Included studies reporting the gingival displacement of vital teeth using the cordless and con-ventional techniques comprised clinical trials, articles in English and without time limits. The RoB 2.0 tool was used to assess the risk of the included studies and the GRADEPro GDT tool to assess the quality of the evidence and the strength of recommendation of the results. Results: The preliminary search yielded a total of 489 articles, discarding those that did not meet the selection criteria, leaving only 15 articles. A total of fourteen articles entered a meta-analysis. It was found that the conventional technique caused better gingival (width) displacement than the cordless techniques, however, it caused more bleeding. Furthermore, among the wireless techniques, the one using polyvinylsiloxane obtained better results. Conclusions: The literature reviewed suggests that the conventional technique resulted in a better gingival displacement (width) than the cordless techniques, however, it causes a greater periodontal injury. Keywords: Periodontal Diseases; Oral Surgical Procedures; Gingiva; Gingival Recession; Systematic Review; Meta-analysis

EVALUATION OF DIFFERENT INTRAOPERATIVE PATIENT PREFERENCE FACTORS ON SUB-GINGIVAL CLAMPS VERSUS RETRACTION CORD PLACEMENT IN NON-CARIOUS CERVICAL LESIONS

This study aimed to compare two gingival displacement and isolation techniques: rubber dam with sub-gingival clamps and retraction cord with cotton rolls. The study also assessed the factors influencing patients' preference for one method, including the need for anesthesia, gingival bleeding, gingival laceration, post-operative spontaneous sensitivity, and time consumption. The study was conducted as a randomized control trial with 34 patients, each with one pair of comparable non-carious cervical lesions (NCCL) on opposing sides of the same arch. A total of 68 restorations were placed, with each patient receiving one restoration using a retraction cord with cotton rolls (RC/CR) and the other using a rubber dam (RD) with sub-gingival clamps. Four dentists with at least five years of clinical experience under the supervision of two dental consultants with more than 14 years of clinical experience carried out the procedures to ensure uniformity in technique and assessment. The preferences of the patients were noted, and gingival bleeding, gingival laceration, spontaneous sensitivity, time consumed to apply RD and RC/CR, and the need for anesthesia were recorded immediately after the procedure. Two weeks later, gingival laceration and gingival bleeding were assessed again. Statistical analysis was performed on each criterion evaluated using a t-test, Chi-square test, and Mann-Whitney test with a significance level of P ≤ 0.05. The results showed statistically significant differences between the RD group and the RC/CR group in terms of patients' preference (P=0.0000), post-operative gingival laceration (P=0.0032), need for anesthesia (P=0.0000), and time of application (P=0.0000). 76% of patients preferred rubber dams with sub-gingival clamps. Gingival laceration, discomfort, and increased time of application were recorded in the RC/CR group. Spontaneous sensitivity reported by patients post-operatively (P=0.7204), gingival tissue laceration assessed after two weeks (P=1.0000), and gingival bleeding assessed immediately (P=0.6891) and in follow-up visits (P=1.0000) were insignificant in both groups. In conclusion, patients preferred rubber dam with sub-gingival clamps due to more comfort, lesser gingival tissue injury, and lesser time of application.

Gingival displacement before impression making: A prospective, comparative randomized clinical trial

Gingival displacement is used in prosthodontics to obtain an accurate impression. However, randomized clinical trials to analyze the performance of different gingival displacement products are lacking. The purpose of this prospective, comparative randomized clinical trial was to evaluate the clinical effectiveness of 3 gingival displacement techniques: Racegel cordless, Racegel with a cord, and Racestyptine with a cord. A prospective, multicenter randomized, open label, 3-arm parallel group study was carried out in private dental practices. Patients with prepared teeth with healthy gingiva were recruited to make impressions before and after gingival displacement, which were digitized. Lateral and vertical gingival displacements were measured with computer-aided 3-dimensional analysis performed by a single operator who was blinded to the technique and the patient. For mean lateral gingival displacement, each gingival displacement method was compared with a required clinical value of 200µm with the Student t test. The comparison of means among the 3 groups was performed using an ANOVA. Periodontal indices were recorded immediately and 7 to 14days after gingival displacement. The percentages were compared with the chi-squared test or the Fisher exact test (α=.05 for all tests). Eighty-eight participants were enrolled. The mean lateral gingival displacement obtained by Racestyptine with a cord (253 ±59µm, P<.001) and by Racegel with a cord (247 ±61µm, P<.001) were significantly higher than 200µm. Lateral displacement observed with Racegel cordless was 207 ±57µm (P=.53). For vertical gingival displacement, no difference among the 3 techniques was found. The astringent effect of these products was confirmed by the absence of crevicular fluid or bleeding. No periodontal damage was observed immediately or 7-14days after displacement. The study showed that cord impregnated with Racestyptine and Racegel with or without a cord provided a sufficient sulcus opening before impression making in prosthodontics, consistent with the clinical requirements for lateral displacement.

Randomized Clinical Trial for Evaluation of Efficacy of a Tissue-displacing Impression System in Comparison with Conventionally Used Gingival Displacement Materials in Young Adult Population

Randomized Clinical Trial for Evaluation of Efficacy of a Tissue-displacing Impression System in Comparison with Conventionally Used Gingival Displacement Materials in Young Adult Population

Addition Silicone Impressions in Fixed Prosthodontics: Clinical Standpoints.

Addition silicones have revolutionized the field of fixed prosthodontics because of their dimensional stability, sufficient tear strengthand excellent detail reproduction. This review study aims to provide a detailed description of the essential variables to be taken into account during the process of making addition silicone impressions in fixed prosthodontics. These variables include the selection of appropriate tray type, size, and fabrication; the use of tray adhesive; gingival displacement techniques; manipulation of the impression material; the choice of the impression material's viscosity; impression techniques; and the proper insertion, removal, disinfection, and pouring of the cast. Additionally, this review aims to help doctors produce high-quality impressions by empowering them to critically assess the impressions to spot mistakes and motivating them to redo impressions that have serious problems before submitting them to the laboratory.

Dentists’ knowledge and preference regarding gingival displacement methods

IntroductionAn accurate impression is an essential procedure for fabricating indirect fixed restorations. To achieve a precise final impression, the management of gingival tissue is without doubt a crucial.AimTo evaluate the use of different gingival displacement techniques among dental clinicians and to assess their associated knowledge and technique preferences.MethodsA self-designed survey was created electronically and sent to a list of dentists. The survey was composed of multiple sections. Participants who stated that they do not use GD methods were asked to answer the survey questions based on their knowledge. Descriptive statistics were generated, andChi-square test was used to examine the association between the different variables.ResultsA total of 188 dentists participated in this study. The majority 144 (76.6%) use GD in their practice. When asked which technique yields a more accurate impression with lower incidence of repeating the impression, 93 (64.6%) reported retraction cord technique with a hemostatic agent results in a higher impression accuracy, while only 14 (9.7%) declared the retraction paste technique as being more accurate.ConclusionThe cordless GD technique is believed to be easier, faster, and less traumatic to the gingival tissues, nevertheless, the outcome of dental impressions is believed to be more predictable with the use of conventional retraction cords and hemostatic medicaments.

A Comparative Analysis of Post-Retraction Changes in Gingival Height after Conventional and Surgical Gingival Displacement: Rotary Curettage, Diode and Er:YAG Laser Troughing.

The aim of the current article is to analyze and compare post-retraction gingival height changes resulting from six different types of gingival-displacement methods, encompassing both conventional and surgical approaches. The study involved a comparative analysis of 263 teeth (consisting of 128 front teeth, 69 premolars, and 66 molars) from 23 patients. For the investigation, three classic retraction methods were utilized, namely the single-cord technique, retraction paste Expasyl, and retraction paste Astringent. Additionally, three surgical techniques were employed, which included ceramic bur rotary curettage, Er:YAG laser troughing, and diode laser troughing. A randomized split-mouth design was implemented, and a significance level of 0.05 was used for the study. The recovery of the free gingival margin height was assessed on gypsum models that were scanned using an intraoral scanner during the first and second week after the retraction procedure. The results revealed that all retraction methods, except for ceramic bur rotary curettage, led to clinically insignificant levels of gingival recession. The article provides insights into the effectiveness and safety of various gingival-displacement techniques, highlighting that most methods tested in the study resulted in minimal or negligible gingival recession post-retraction.

COMPARITIVE EVALUATION OF HORIZONTAL GINGIVAL DISPLACMENT USING STAY-PUT RETRACTION CORD AND ASTRINGENT RETRACTION PASTE: AN IN VIVO STUDY

Introduction: Gingival retraction cord is the most commonly used gingival displacement material however, it causes discomfort and produces damage to the periodontium. Various new gingival retraction materials have been introduced to overcome these problems. Aim: Thisstudy aims at comparative evaluation of horizontal gingival displacement using Stay-put retraction cord and Astringent retraction paste. Materials and Methods: A total of 40 subjects were selected and 40 samples were made for the study. Samples were divided into two groups,20 subjects in each group) depending on the materials used for gingival displacement.The impressions obtained after placing retraction system were poured in type IV die stone.The amount of gingival displacement was then measured as a distance from the tooth to the crest of the gingiva in a horizontal plane using stereomicroscope &amp;analysed in image analysis software. Results: Among the experimental groups, astringent gingival retraction paste showed the highest value for gingival displacement (0.518mm) and the stay‑put retraction cord (0.435mm ) showed the least value. Conclusion: Within the limitations of this in vivo study, astringent gingival retraction paste showed the highest value for gingival displacement whereas, stay‑put retraction cord showed the least value.

Cord Placement Model: An Instructional Guide for Preclinical Dental Students to Practice the Skill of Retraction Cord Placement.

Gingival displacement is essential for ideal margin exposure and improved direct or indirect restorative outcome. Recent literature found many dentists prefer using retraction cord. Some contraindications of other displacement methods make retraction cord displacement preferred. It is necessary to teach dental students appropriate cord placement while minimizing gingival trauma. We developed a stone model using prepared typodont teeth and simulated gingiva that was made of polyvinylsiloxane material. Twenty-three faculty and 143 D2 students were briefed on the instructional guide. After faculty demonstration, D2 students practiced for 10-15 minutes under observation. The following year, former D2 (now D3) and D4 students were asked for feedback on the instructional experience. Fifty-six percent of faculty rated the model and instructional guide good to excellent, and 65% rated the student experience as good to excellent, with only one participant rating it poor. Seventy-eight percent of D3 students strongly agreed or agreed the exercise increased their understanding of the technique in placing cord on a patient. Furthermore, 94% of D4 students strongly agreed or agreed having this exercise in preclinical D2 year would have been helpful. Use of retraction cord to deflect gingiva is still preferred by most dentists. Completing the cord placement exercise on a model helps prepare students to perform the procedure on a patient before arriving at the clinic. Survey comments such as "useful exercise" support use of this instructional model. Overall, faculty and D3 and D4 students felt the exercise was beneficial to use in preclinical education.

A modified scan technique for multiple abutment teeth using the trim and lock function

ObjectivesTo describe a new protocol for digital scanning of multiple abutment teeth using the trim and lock software tools. MethodsA reverse workflow technique was used. Scanning was performed with the interim restoration in position. The abutment teeth were then trimmed from the scan. The retraction cord or interim restoration from either the first mesial or distal abutment tooth was removed and only that tooth was scanned, allowing the dentist to easily manage gingival displacement and keep the tooth dry from crevicular fluid and saliva. Consequently, the preparation margin remained visible and uncontaminated during the scan. The adjacent abutment teeth detected in the scan were deleted from it, and the scan was then locked using a tool of the scanning software. Next, the retraction cord or interim restoration of the next abutment tooth was removed, and only that tooth was scanned. The procedure was repeated until all prepared teeth were individually scanned. ResultsThe technique presented here facilitated the scanning of multiple abutment teeth in a simple and predictable way by utilizing the trim and lock surface tools of the scanning software and helped in avoiding closure of the gingival crevice. ConclusionsSplitting the scan for a complex case with multiple abutment teeth allows reliable 3D acquisition of the finish line of each abutment tooth. Therefore, this technique simplifies the full-arch intraoral scanning process and can improve treatment efficiency. Clinical SignificanceThe trim and lock tool allows scanning of each prepared abutment tooth separately, transforming a full-arch impression into multiple single scans. This technique helps to easily manage gingival displacement and maintain an uncontaminated and dry preparation margin during the scan.

Trueness of intraoral scanners according to subgingival depth of abutment for fixed prosthesis

This study aimed to compare the trueness of intraoral scanners (IOSs) according to the subgingival finish line depth of tooth preparation for fixed prostheses. The prepared maxillary right first molar was fabricated by using ceramic material. A computer-aided design (CAD) reference model (CRM) of the abutment was obtained by using a contact scanner. The subgingival finish line was located according to the depth at 0-mm, 0.25-mm, 0.5-mm, 0.75-mm, and 1-mm. CAD test models (CTMs) were obtained by using 2 IOSs (i500 and CS3600). CRM and CTM were superimposed and analyzed (Geomagic control X). The one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to compare the trueness according to the subgingival finish line depth. The paired t test was used to compare the trueness of IOSs with and without gingival retraction (α = .05). When the gingival displacement code was not used, it was observed that the trueness of both IOSs decreased significantly as the depth of the subgingival finish line increased (P < 0.001). When the subgingival finish line was positioned deeper than 0.5-mm, the trueness of both IOSs exceeded 100 µm in the marginal region. When the gingival displacement cord was used, the trueness of both IOSs did not exceed 100 µm regardless of the subgingival finish line depth. When gingival cord was used, it showed significantly higher trueness than when not used (P < 0.001). When the gingival displacement cord was not used, the trueness of IOSs decreased as the subgingival finish line depth increased. But the use of the gingival displacement cord improved the scanning trueness by 90%. Thus, it is necessary to use the gingival displacement cord according to the clinical situation to improve scan trueness at the subgingival finish line.

Comparative evaluation of gingival displacement produced by three different gingival retraction materials

Aim: To compare and evaluate the gingival displacement produced by three different gingival retraction materials. Materials and Methods: A study was conducted to evaluate the gingival displacement produced by three gingival retraction materials. 12 subjects were selected for the study. T-stat retraction paste system (Nexobio co.Ltd,Korea), 3M ESPE Retraction Paste (3M Deutschland GmbH, Germany), Roeko Stay- put retraction cord (Coltene Whaledent Pvt. Ltd.) were used in the study. Results: Out of the three materials used, lateral displacement was maximum with the Stay-put retraction cord followed by 3M retraction paste and least by T-Stat retraction paste. All the materials produced acceptable amount of vertical gingival retraction. When compared Stay-put retraction cord was found to be most effective among the three materials. On comparison of the cordless retraction materials, it was found that the material which was more viscous in consistency (3M retraction paste) was able to produce more lateral gingival displacement than the material having less viscosity (T-stat retraction paste) even though both the cordless materials provided almost similar amount of vertical gingival displacement. The overall gingival retraction produced by the Stay-put cord was the highest followed by 3M retraction paste and least by the T-stat retraction paste.

Comparative Evaluation of Gingival Displacement by Using Retraction Paste and Retraction Cord- In-Vivo Pilot Study

Marginal integrity is one of the important principles of Tooth preparation. To achieve this, a satisfactory gingival displacement procedure is necessary. Aim of this study was to determine an appropriate gingival displacement and to access the gingival displacement on an unprepared tooth using retraction paste and impregnated retraction cord. Fourteen patients were chosen for this in vivo study. Oral prophylaxis was completed 15 days prior to the retraction procedure. Mandibular preliminary impressions were made using rubber base impression material. Gingival retraction procedure was carried out on the right and left 1st mandibular molars alternatively using retraction paste and retraction cord after 2 days of preliminary impression. Retraction paste was placed directly over the sulcus as per manufacturer’s instructions and kept for 2-3 minutes and rinsed and the required length of retraction cord was dispensed and placed into the gingival sulcus using a cord packer and cord was removed after 5 minutes. Post retraction measurements completed made an impression with rubber base impression material by using sectional tray alternatively. Statistical analysis was performed with ANOVA test, paired student t test with SPSS version 21. Patients were more comfortable with retraction paste as against gingival retraction cord with significance observed by observers 1, 3 and 4. (P&lt;0.05). Retraction paste had significantly better retraction ability compared to retraction cord as observed by observer 1, 3 and 4 (p&lt;0.05) whereas no significant difference was observed by observer 2(p&gt;0.05). Retraction paste was significantly less time consuming compared to retraction cord as reported by observer 1 and 4 (P&lt;0.05) and no significant differences between the two systems was reported by observer 3and 4(P&gt;0.05.Within the limitations of the study, both retraction techniques showed adequate gingival retraction for the prosthesis and clinically insignificant differences were seen in both gingival retraction system regarding the retraction achieve. Retraction paste found to be easy for the control of hemorrhage and easy for placement and recommended to use where there is uncontrolled bleeding and sub-gingival finish lines of the tooth preparation However, the amount of vertical gingival retraction observed with the paste retraction system was significantly less than the medicated retraction cord.

In Vitro Examination of the Pressure Caused by Different Techniques and Materials for Gingival Displacement

In Vitro Examination of the Pressure Caused by Different Techniques and Materials for Gingival Displacement

Comparative Evaluation of the Clinical Efficacy of Four Different Gingival Retraction Systems: An In Vivo Study

Introduction: There are numerous gingival retraction systems available on the market. This study aimed to evaluate the clinical efficacy of four gingival retraction systems, namely, impregnated retraction cord, gingival retraction capsule, retraction paste, and polyvinyl acetate strips.Methods: A total of 20 people were chosen for the study, and 100 specimens were collected. The specimens were classified into five groups based on the materials used for gingival displacement. On the first day, a baseline impression without gingival displacement was made. Afterward, impressions were made with any of the following four gingival retraction systems: impregnated retraction cord (SURE-Cord® Plus; Sure Dent Corporation, Jungwon-gu, South Korea), retraction capsule (3M ESPE astringent retraction paste capsule; 3M Corporation, St. Paul, MN), retraction paste (Traxodent® Hemodent® Paste Retraction System; Premier Dental Co., Plymouth Meeting, PA) and polyvinylacetate strips (Merocel; Merocel Co., Mystic, CT), with a 14-day interval between each system. The amount of gingival displacement was measured using an optical microscope as the distance from the tooth to the gingiva crest in a horizontal plane.Results: All experimental groups had higher gingival displacement than the control group (P < 0.01). Among the experimental groups, polyvinyl acetate strips had the highest gingival displacement value (541.65 μm), followed by impregnated retraction cord (505.37 μm), retraction capsule (333.57 μm), and retraction paste (230.63 μm).Conclusion: Within the limits of this in vivo study, significant differences in horizontal gingival displacement were discovered among the four evaluated systems. The horizontal displacement requirements of 200 μm were exceeded by all four systems. The maximum value for gingival displacement was found in polyvinyl acetate strips (Merocel), followed by impregnated retraction cord (SURE-Cord), and retraction capsule (3M ESPE), and the lowest value was found in retraction paste (Traxodent).

Gingival Displacement in the Vertical and Horizontal Dimension under the Condition of Mild Gingivitis-A Randomized Clinical Study.

This randomized clinical study aimed at quantifying the gingival displacement performance in the vertical and horizontal directions of the 3M™ Astringent Retraction Paste (3M Oral Care, Seefeld, Germany) in comparison with the double-cord technique with aluminum chloride as an astringent. Afterward, any soft-tissue changes were assessed for 12 months. After inducing mild gingivitis, 18 probands received the intervention ‘cord’ and 22 probands received the intervention ‘paste’ at the palatal half of upper premolars prior to conventional impression making. The resulting plaster casts were digitized and analyzed for the vertical and horizontal gingival displacement, applying a newly developed computer-assisted methodology. The entire palatal half of the tooth was evaluated instead of only single sites. Under the condition of mild gingivitis, the gingival displacement performance was comparable for both techniques in the horizontal direction (width) and only somewhat better for the cord technique in the vertical direction (depth). The magnitude of displacement was in a similar range in both directions, with somewhat higher values in the vertical direction. The marginal gingiva height changes were of such low extent during the follow-up period of 12 months with only minimally higher values for the paste that they cannot be considered as clinically relevant recessions.

Assessment of lateral and vertical tissue displacement obtained by the retraction cord and the Magic Foam® paste: a randomized controlled clinical trial

Objective: to assess the amount of vertical and lateral gingival tissue displacement and recovery obtained by aretraction cord and Magic Foam® paste. Material and Methods: twenty- two participants, requiring full coverageprosthesis in the anterior area, were prepared using a deep subgingival chamfer finish line, then randomly allocatedto the retraction cord group (Group RC, n = 11 teeth) or the Magic Foam® Paste group (Group FP, n = 11 teeth).The amount of lateral and vertical tissue displacement was measured by comparing the pre- and post- displacementcasts at three fixed points (midbuccal, mesial and distal) using a stereomicroscope. After two weeks, tissue recoverywas assessed by taking an impression using a double mix. The amount of tissue recovery was measured verticallyfrom the gingival margin to the bottom of the sulcus and by comparing the results to the pre-displacement records.Results: there was no significant difference in the vertical gingival displacement (P &gt; 0.05). However, there wassignificantly less lateral gingival displacement of the Magic Foam® Paste in the mesial and mid-buccal surfaces only(P &lt; 0.05). The Magic Foam® Paste showed significantly more tissue recovery than the retraction cord (P&lt; 0.05).Conclusion: both the retraction cord and the Magic Foam® Paste are considered effective means of retraction asthey give the least amount of retraction needed both laterally and vertically. KEYWORDSGingival retraction techniques; Gingiva; Retraction cord; Tissue recovery; Stereomicroscope.