• Register
  • Login

European Journal of Molecular & Clinical Medicine

  • Home
  • Browse
    • Current Issue
    • By Issue
    • By Subject
    • Keyword Index
    • Author Index
    • Indexing Databases XML
  • Journal Info
    • About Journal
    • Aims and Scope
    • Editorial Board
    • Publication Ethics
    • Indexing and Abstracting
    • Peer Review Process
    • News
  • Guide for Authors
  • Submit Manuscript
  • Contact Us
Advanced Search

Notice

As part of Open Journals’ initiatives, we create website for scholarly open access journals. If you are responsible for this journal and would like to know more about how to use the editorial system, please visit our website at https://ejournalplus.com or
send us an email to info@ejournalplus.com

We will contact you soon

  1. Home
  2. Volume 7, Issue 8
  3. Author

Online ISSN: 2515-8260

Volume7, Issue8

A COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF THE EFFICACY OF TWO GINGIVAL RETRACTION SYSTEMS: AN IN VIVO STUDY

    Dr. Pradipto Parai, Dr. Polysmita Ojah, Dr. Shailesh Jain, Dr. Nausheen Khan, Dr. Sakshi Gangwar, Dr. Khurshid Mattoo

European Journal of Molecular & Clinical Medicine, 2020, Volume 7, Issue 8, Pages 4870-4880

  • Show Article
  • Download
  • Cite
  • Statistics
  • Share

Abstract

Aim: To compare and evaluate the efficacy of two gingival retraction systems. Materials and method: This in vivo experimental study was carried out on 20 patients in need of tooth supported crown and bridge. Two different gingival retraction systems were used to evaluate the amount of gingival displacement. Patients were marked as A, B, C and so on and for each patient three impressions were made and named as I, II, III. Group I- Control (baseline impression), Group II- Impression with knitted retraction cord #00 size ultrapak group, Group III- Impression with 3M ESPE retraction capsule (in millimeter). The abutment tooth was prepared for full coverage crown with a sub-gingival finish line. Baseline impression was made on the first day of tooth preparation without retraction. On day 8 and day 15 impressions were made with vinyl polysiloxane regular body after displacement with anyone of 2 displacement agents. A total of three impressions were made for each abutment tooth. Impressions were poured immediately with die stone. A 3 mm thick buccolingual slice was obtained from the cast of the prepared tooth region with the die cutter. The gingival retraction was measured from the tooth to the crest of gingiva in a horizontal plane. These samples were viewed under a Profile projector (MEERA METZER PROFILE PROJECTOR MODEL-MET7-B01RD) at 10x magnification and gingival retraction was measured from the tooth surface to the crest of gingival. Datas obtained were then send for statistical analysis. Results: There was a highest mean value for group III (3M ESPE retraction capsule) -1.1879±0.2490 mmin comparison to group I, group II. On performing the student independent t test, it was found that P is <0.05 that is statistically significant. Conclusion: Impression made after retraction of gingiva with 3M ESPE retraction capsule was effective in respect to gingival displacement.
Keywords:
  • PDF (410 K)
  • XML
(2021). A COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF THE EFFICACY OF TWO GINGIVAL RETRACTION SYSTEMS: AN IN VIVO STUDY. European Journal of Molecular & Clinical Medicine, 7(8), 4870-4880.
Dr. Pradipto Parai, Dr. Polysmita Ojah, Dr. Shailesh Jain, Dr. Nausheen Khan, Dr. Sakshi Gangwar, Dr. Khurshid Mattoo. "A COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF THE EFFICACY OF TWO GINGIVAL RETRACTION SYSTEMS: AN IN VIVO STUDY". European Journal of Molecular & Clinical Medicine, 7, 8, 2021, 4870-4880.
(2021). 'A COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF THE EFFICACY OF TWO GINGIVAL RETRACTION SYSTEMS: AN IN VIVO STUDY', European Journal of Molecular & Clinical Medicine, 7(8), pp. 4870-4880.
A COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF THE EFFICACY OF TWO GINGIVAL RETRACTION SYSTEMS: AN IN VIVO STUDY. European Journal of Molecular & Clinical Medicine, 2021; 7(8): 4870-4880.
  • RIS
  • EndNote
  • BibTeX
  • APA
  • MLA
  • Harvard
  • Vancouver
  • Article View: 46
  • PDF Download: 70
  • LinkedIn
  • Twitter
  • Facebook
  • Google
  • Telegram
Journal Information

Publisher:

Email:  info@ejmcm.com

  • Home
  • Glossary
  • News
  • Aims and Scope
  • Privacy Policy
  • Sitemap

Editorial Team:  editor@ejmcm.com

For Special Issue Proposal : chiefeditor.ejmcm@gmail.com / info@ejmcm.com

This journal is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International (CC-BY 4.0)

Powered by eJournalPlus